Campbell Susan E, Glazener Cathryn Ma, Hunter Kathleen F, Cody June D, Moore Katherine N
School of Nursing Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences,University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jan 18;1:CD001843. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001843.pub4.
Urinary incontinence is common after both radical prostatectomy and transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Conservative management includes pelvic floor muscle training with or without biofeedback, electrical stimulation, extra-corporeal magnetic innervation (ExMI), compression devices (penile clamps), lifestyle changes, or a combination of methods.
To assess the effects of conservative management for urinary incontinence after prostatectomy.
We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialised Register (searched 24 August 2011), EMBASE (January 1980 to Week 48 2009), CINAHL (January 1982 to 20 November 2009), the reference lists of relevant articles, handsearched conference proceedings and contacted investigators to locate studies.
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials evaluating conservative interventions for urinary continence in men after prostatectomy.
Two or more review authors assessed the methodological quality of trials and abstracted data. We tried to contact several authors of included studies to obtain extra information.
Thirty-seven trials met the inclusion criteria, 33 amongst men after radical prostatectomy, three trials after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) and one trial after either operation. The trials included 3399 men, of whom 1937 had an active conservative intervention. There was considerable variation in the interventions, populations and outcome measures. Data were not available for many of the pre-stated outcomes. Men's symptoms improved over time irrespective of management. Adverse effects did not occur or were not reported.There was no evidence from eight trials that pelvic floor muscle training with or without biofeedback was better than control for men who had urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy (e.g. 57% with urinary incontinence versus 62% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) for incontinence after 12 months 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.22) as the confidence intervals were wide, reflecting uncertainty. However, one large multicentre trial of one-to-one therapy showed no difference in any urinary or quality of life outcome measures and had narrower confidence intervals. There was also no evidence of benefit for erectile dysfunction (56% with no erection in the pelvic floor muscle training group versus 55% in the control group after one year, RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.20). Individual small trials provided data to suggest that electrical stimulation, external magnetic innervation or combinations of treatments might be beneficial but the evidence was limited. One large trial demonstrated that there was no benefit for incontinence or erectile dysfunction from a one-to-one pelvic floor muscle training based intervention to men who were incontinent after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) (e.g. 65% with urinary incontinence versus 62% in the control group, RR after 12 months 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.23).In eight trials of conservative treatment of all men after radical prostatectomy aimed at both treatment and prevention, there was an overall benefit from pelvic floor muscle training versus control management in terms of reduction of UI (e.g. 10% with urinary incontinence after one year versus 32% in the control groups, RR for urinary incontinence 0.32, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.51). However, this finding was not supported by other data from pad tests. The findings should be treated with caution, as most trials were of poor to moderate quality and confidence intervals were wide. Men in one trial were more satisfied with one type of external compression device, which had the lowest urine loss, compared to two others or no treatment. The effect of other conservative interventions such as lifestyle changes remains undetermined as no trials involving these interventions were identified.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The value of the various approaches to conservative management of postprostatectomy incontinence after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. It seems unlikely that men benefit from one-to-one pelvic floor muscle training therapy after transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP). Long-term incontinence may be managed by external penile clamp, but there are safety problems.
根治性前列腺切除术和经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)后尿失禁都很常见。保守治疗包括盆底肌肉训练(可结合或不结合生物反馈)、电刺激、体外磁神经刺激(ExMI)、压迫装置(阴茎夹)、生活方式改变或多种方法联合使用。
评估前列腺切除术后尿失禁保守治疗的效果。
我们检索了Cochrane尿失禁小组专业注册库(2011年8月24日检索)、EMBASE(1980年1月至2009年第48周)、CINAHL(1982年1月至2009年11月20日)、相关文章的参考文献列表,手工检索会议论文集并联系研究者以查找研究。
评估前列腺切除术后男性尿失禁保守干预措施的随机或半随机对照试验。
两名或更多综述作者评估试验的方法学质量并提取数据。我们试图联系纳入研究的几位作者以获取额外信息。
37项试验符合纳入标准,其中33项针对根治性前列腺切除术后的男性,3项针对经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)后的男性,1项针对两种手术中的任一种手术后的男性。这些试验纳入了3399名男性,其中1937名接受了积极的保守干预。干预措施、研究对象和结局指标差异很大。许多预先设定的结局指标没有可用数据。无论采用何种治疗方法,男性的症状随时间推移均有改善。未发生不良反应或未报告不良反应。八项试验没有证据表明,对于根治性前列腺切除术后尿失禁的男性,有或没有生物反馈的盆底肌肉训练比对照组更好(例如,尿失禁发生率为57%,而对照组为62%,12个月后尿失禁的风险比(RR)为0.85,95%置信区间(CI)为0.60至1.22),因为置信区间很宽,反映了不确定性。然而,一项大型多中心一对一治疗试验显示,在任何尿失禁或生活质量结局指标方面均无差异,且置信区间较窄。也没有证据表明对勃起功能障碍有益(盆底肌肉训练组一年后无勃起的比例为56%,对照组为55%,RR为1.01,95%CI为0.84至1.20)。个别小型试验提供的数据表明,电刺激、体外磁神经刺激或联合治疗可能有益,但证据有限。一项大型试验表明,对于经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)后尿失禁的男性,基于一对一盆底肌肉训练的干预措施对尿失禁或勃起功能障碍并无益处(例如,尿失禁发生率为65%,而对照组为62%,12个月后的RR为1.05,95%CI为0.91至1.23)。在八项针对根治性前列腺切除术后所有男性旨在治疗和预防的保守治疗试验中,与对照管理相比,盆底肌肉训练在减少尿失禁方面总体上有益(例如,一年后尿失禁发生率为10%,而对照组为32%,尿失禁的RR为0.32,95%CI为0.20至0.51)。然而,这一发现未得到尿垫试验其他数据的支持。由于大多数试验质量较差或中等,且置信区间较宽,这些结果应谨慎对待。一项试验中的男性对一种外部压迫装置更满意,该装置的尿量损失最低,与另外两种装置或不治疗相比。其他保守干预措施(如生活方式改变)的效果仍未确定,因为未找到涉及这些干预措施的试验。
根治性前列腺切除术后前列腺切除术后尿失禁的各种保守治疗方法的价值仍不确定。经尿道前列腺电切术(TURP)后男性似乎不太可能从一对一盆底肌肉训练治疗中获益。长期尿失禁可通过外部阴茎夹治疗,但存在安全问题。