Analysis of conventional versus advanced pelvic floor muscle training in the management of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND: The underutilization of additional supportive muscles is one of the potential reasons for suboptimal efficacy of conventional pelvic floor muscle training (CPFMT). The present study concentrates on any advantage of advanced pelvic floor muscle training (APFMT) in patients with urinary incontinence (UI) after radical prostatectomy (RP). METHODS: Literature search was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science from database inception to February 2020. The data analysis was performed by the Cochrane Collaboration's software RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: Both APFMT and CPFMT groups indicates superiority over baseline in terms of pad number, the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire—Short Form (ICIQ-SF) score, pad weight at short-term follow-up, and PFME and PFMS at intermediate-term follow-up. No adverse events were reported in all included studies. Patients receiving APFMT had a similar attrition rate to those receiving CPFMT (18/236 vs. 22/282, P=0.61). Compared to CPFMT group, APFMT group provided intermediate-term advantages in terms of pad number (MD: −0.75, 95% CI: −1.36 to −0.14; P=0.02), ICIQ-SF score (MD: −3.79, 95% CI: −5.89 to −1.69; P=0.0004), PFME (MD: 1.93, 95% CI: 0.99 to 2.87; P<0.0001) and pad weight (MD: −1.40, 95% CI: −1.70 to −1.00; P<0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence indicated that APFMT might facilitate the recovery of UI after RP according to intermediate-term advantages over CPFMT in terms of pad number, ICIQ-SF score, PFME and pad weight. Further standardized, physiotherapist-guided and well-designed clinical trials conducted by large multicenter and experienced multidisciplinary clinicians are still warranted.