ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2016
Evaluation of pelvic floor muscle strength before and after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy and early outcomes on urinary continence.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changes in quality of life and lower urinary tract symptoms over time in cancer patients after a total prostatectomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022Pooled it
- A systematic review of PFE pre-prostatectomy.Journal of robotic surgery · 2018Pooled it
- Urologic latency time during uroflow stop test with electromyography: an incontinence detector in rehabilitation after robotic radical prostatectomy.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2023Observational
- Is PREHAB in Pelvic Floor Surgery Needed? A Topical Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Review
- Reliability of manometry for assessing pelvic floor muscle function in healthy men.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of pelvic floor muscle (PFM) assessment and training before and after robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) in improving PFM strength and urinary continence. We performed an analysis of a database of patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) performed by two urologists from 2011 to 2013. Pelvic floor muscle (PFM) activation and strength were graded by a trained pelvic floor physiotherapist. Patients were given an exercise program, grouped according to the strength of their pelvic floor as graded by assessment, to complete before and after surgery. PFM strength was recorded preoperatively, 4 days post-catheter removal and 4 weeks post-catheter removal. Continence was recorded at 4 weeks postop and was defined as the requirement of no continence aids. A total of 98 patients had RARP and a preoperative physiotherapy assessment plus postoperative appointments at around 1 and 4 weeks post-RARP. The majority of men improved their PFM strength regardless of preoperative strength with no significant predictors of postoperative strength found. Age was the only significant predictor of postoperative incontinence. In this pilot study, a majority of patients increased their pelvic floor strength with time. Pelvic floor physiotherapy is an important modifiable patient factor, which does have an impact in improving patients' urinary continence by strengthening the pelvic floor muscles. Patient age influences response to pelvic floor physiotherapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.