ArticleJournal of robotic surgery2026
Single-session pelvic prehabilitation improves continence recovery after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a prospective comparative study.
Article in Journal of robotic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Post-robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) urinary incontinence (PPI) represents the functional complication with the greatest negative impact on the patient's global quality of life (QoL). Although the role of Pelvic Floor Muscle Training (PFMT) is widely established in perioperative clinical management, it is mostly delivered on demand after surgery. This study primarily assesses the clinical efficacy of pelvic prehabilitation when systematically implemented compared with usual care. This is a prospective, non-randomized, quasi-experimental (before-and-after) study comparing all consecutive patients undergoing RARP prior to the implementation of the PFMT program with an equally sized cohort of consecutive patients exposed to PFMT before RARP. PFMT consisted of a standardized 60-minute group session delivered by dedicated pelvic physiotherapists, including pelvic floor anatomy education, supervised proprioceptive and contraction exercises, and prescription of a structured home-based training program. The primary endpoint was post-operative continence, defined as no need for pads after surgery. Functional outcomes were also assessed using the UCLA-PCI and SF-36 questionnaires at 1, 3, and 6 months after surgery, and the recourse to post-operative PFMT. Additionally, a composite variable named "True Clinical Need" was defined as no incontinence at 6 months plus a moderate/severe subjective bother (score 3 or 4 on question Q5 of the UCLA-PCI). Finally, a cost-avoidance analysis on preoperative PFMT was performed. Overall, 214 consecutive subjects were recruited: 107 per our standard pathway (no-PFMT group) and 107 who received PFMT before RARP (PFMT group). Patient-reported satisfaction and adherence to the home-based program were high (both > 8/10 on a Likert scale). Demographic, oncological, and surgical features were comparable between the two groups. The PFMT group demonstrated significantly better 6-month continence rates (82.0% vs. 66.7%, p = 0.025) and urinary function scores (57.9 vs. 51.7, p = 0.045) compared with the NO-PFMT group. The recourse to individual postoperative cycles was similar between groups (no-PFMT 3.7% vs. PFMT 5.6%), as well the true clinical need (no-PFMT 16.1% vs. PFMT 11.2%). A cost-avoidance analysis showed that prehabilitation would yield an estimated net saving of €165 per patient. A single PFMT session could significantly improve continence recovery at 6 months after RARP within economic sustainability.
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.