Beneficial effects of biofeedback-assisted pelvic floor muscle training in patients with urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: A systematic review and metaanalysis

Abstract

Objectives: This systematic review and metaanalysis compared the effects of biofeedback-assisted pelvic floor muscle training with those of pelvic floor muscle training alone in patients with urinary incontinence after radical prostetactomy.

Design: A review and metaanalysis study design.

Data sources: The metaanalysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses guidelines. A systematic search of PubMed/Medline OVID, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, BioMed Central, Web of Science, Chinese Electronic Periodical Services, Chinese Journal and Thesis Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure was performed for retrieving records.

Review methods: For determining the effects of training type on urinary incontinence, randomized controlled trials on biofeedback-assisted pelvic floor muscle training with or without electrical stimulation were compared with those on pelvic floor muscle training with or without electrical stimulation, respectively, in the metaanalysis. The Cochrane Collaboration tool in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions 5.1.0 was used to assess the methodological quality of the included trials. Subjective and objective measurement of urinary incontinence improvement and the quality of life were the primary and secondary outcome measures, respectively. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software 2.0. In addition, subgroup analyses and metaregression were performed to explore the possible sources of heterogeneity.

Results: Thirteen randomized controlled trials involving 1108 patients with prostatectomy incontinence were included. The immediate-, intermediate-, and long-term effects of objectively measured biofeedback-assisted pelvic floor muscle training on urinary incontinence were significant (mean effect size=-0.316, -0.335, and -0.294; 95% CI: -0.589 to -0.043, -0.552 to -0.118 and -0.535 to -0.053; p=0.023, 0.002, and 0.017, respectively) when compared with those of pelvic floor muscle training alone. However, when urinary incontinence was measured subjectively, only the intermediate and long-term effects of biofeedback were found (p=0.034 and 0.005, respectively). Small-to-moderate immediate- and intermediate-term effects on the quality of life were observed when biofeedback-assisted pelvic floor muscle training was compared with pelvic floor muscle training alone. No publication bias was observed among studies.

Conclusions: Biofeedback can be an adjunct treatment to pelvic floor muscle training for reducing urinary incontinence in patients who have undergone radical prostatectomy.

Keywords: Biofeedback; Pelvic floor muscle training; Prostatectomy; Urinary incontinence.