TY - JOUR

T1 - Penile vibratory stimulation in the treatment of post-prostatectomy incontinence

T2 - A randomized pilot study

AU - Fode, Mikkel

AU - Sønksen, Jens

N1 - © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

PY - 2015/2

Y1 - 2015/2

N2 - AIMS: To examine penile vibratory stimulation (PVS) in the treatment of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (UI).METHODS: Patients with post-prostatectomy UI were included in a 12-week trial. A 24-hr pad test and a 72-hr voiding diary were collected at baseline. Participants were randomized to receive PVS for the first 6 weeks (group 1) or for the final 6 weeks (group 2) of the study. The primary outcome was the difference in leakage between groups 1 and 2 at 6 weeks as measured by changes in the pad test. The trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.org (NCT01540656).RESULTS: Data from 31 men were available for analyses. The difference in the change on the pad test between the groups did not reach statistical significance at 6 weeks (P = 0.13) while the change in incontinence episodes between groups approached statistical significance (P = 0.052). However, there was a median reduction of -33 g (P = 0.021) on the pad test and a median reduction in daily incontinence episodes of -1 (P = 0.023) in group 1 at 6 weeks. At 12 weeks, group 2 had a median decrease on the pad test of -8 g (P = 0.10) and no change in incontinence episodes. A pooled analysis showed a decline on the pad test of -13.5 g (P = 0.004) after PVS. Small improvements were seen in subjective symptom scores and 58% stated to be satisfied with PVS. Self-limiting side effects were experienced by 15% of patients.CONCLUSIONS: PVS is feasible in the treatment of post-prostatectomy UI. Larger trials are needed to document the clinical efficacy.

AB - AIMS: To examine penile vibratory stimulation (PVS) in the treatment of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (UI).METHODS: Patients with post-prostatectomy UI were included in a 12-week trial. A 24-hr pad test and a 72-hr voiding diary were collected at baseline. Participants were randomized to receive PVS for the first 6 weeks (group 1) or for the final 6 weeks (group 2) of the study. The primary outcome was the difference in leakage between groups 1 and 2 at 6 weeks as measured by changes in the pad test. The trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.org (NCT01540656).RESULTS: Data from 31 men were available for analyses. The difference in the change on the pad test between the groups did not reach statistical significance at 6 weeks (P = 0.13) while the change in incontinence episodes between groups approached statistical significance (P = 0.052). However, there was a median reduction of -33 g (P = 0.021) on the pad test and a median reduction in daily incontinence episodes of -1 (P = 0.023) in group 1 at 6 weeks. At 12 weeks, group 2 had a median decrease on the pad test of -8 g (P = 0.10) and no change in incontinence episodes. A pooled analysis showed a decline on the pad test of -13.5 g (P = 0.004) after PVS. Small improvements were seen in subjective symptom scores and 58% stated to be satisfied with PVS. Self-limiting side effects were experienced by 15% of patients.CONCLUSIONS: PVS is feasible in the treatment of post-prostatectomy UI. Larger trials are needed to document the clinical efficacy.

KW - Aged

KW - Feasibility Studies

KW - Follow-Up Studies

KW - Humans

KW - Incidence

KW - Incontinence Pads

KW - Male

KW - Middle Aged

KW - Penis

KW - Physical Stimulation

KW - Pilot Projects

KW - Prostatectomy

KW - Self Report

KW - Treatment Outcome

KW - Urinary Incontinence

KW - Vibration

U2 - 10.1002/nau.22536

DO - 10.1002/nau.22536

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 24285576

VL - 34

SP - 117

EP - 122

JO - Neurourology and Urodynamics

JF - Neurourology and Urodynamics

SN - 0733-2467

IS - 2

ER -