Recovery of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy using early vs late pelvic floor electrical stimulation and biofeedback-associated treatment

OBJECTIVE To compare the early vs late use of pelvic floor electrical stimulation (FES) plus biofeedback (BF) in terms of time to recovery and rate of continence after radical prostatectomy (RP). MATERIALS AND METHODS Between April 2007 and April 2012, a total of 120 patients who underwent RP were prospectively included in the study. In group 1 (60 cases), we included patients who presented a urinary leakage weight 50 g for 24 hours, 14 days after catheter removal. In group 2 (60 cases), we included patients who continued to present a urinary leakage weight 50 g for 24 hours, 12 months after surgery. In both groups, patients were prospectively submitted to the same program of BFþFES. RESULTS Mean leakage weight became significantly lower (P <.002) in group 1 than in group 2 starting from visit 1 (2 weeks) through visit 7 (24 weeks). However, a significant difference (P <.05) between the 2 groups in terms of percentage of continent patients was achieved only at 2 weeks (group 1 ¼ 20%; group 2 ¼ 0%) and 4 weeks (group 1 ¼ 66.7%; group 2 ¼ 46.7%). The objective continence rate 6 months after the beginning of treatment was 96.7% in group 1 and 91.7% in group 2. CONCLUSION In our experience, the treatment with BF and FES has a significant positive effect on the recovery of urinary continence independently to the time in which it is used (early vs delayed). This protocol might represent a noninvasive method for all patients undergoing RP, also in a 12- month interval from surgery.