Urology · 2024
Comparison of In-person Versus Online Comprehensive Pelvic Floor Rehabilitation Program Following Prostatectomy.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hutchison Dylan, Jones Marieke K, Ghosal Soutik, Lawton Jack, Greene Kirsten L, Rapp David E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare continence outcomes in post-prostatectomy patients undergoing supervised in-person versus online pelvic floor muscle training and pelvic floor education (iPMFT vs oPFMT/PFE). Despite the proven benefit of in-person PFMT for urinary incontinence (UI) following prostatectomy, numerous barriers impede access. We developed a comprehensive online program to deliver oPFMT/PFE.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients receiving iPFMT versus oPFMT/PFE with minimum 12-month follow-up. Outcomes were assessed at 3 weeks, 3-, 6-, and 12 months following robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy using validated ICIQ-MLUTS and IIQ-7 questionnaires and additional items (daily pad use [PPD] and satisfaction). The primary study outcome was ICIQ-MLUTS SUI domain score (SDS). Secondary outcomes were PPD, PPD cure (0 PPD at 12 months), SUI cure (12-month SDS=baseline score), and QOL score (IIQ-7 Sum).
RESULTS: Analysis included 41 men. Though men enrolled in oPFMT/PFE demonstrated lower SUI domain scores than iPFMT at most time points (3wk P <.01, 3 mo P = .04, 6 mo P = .15, 12 mo P = .04), the rate of improvement from 3 weeks to other time points was similar between groups (P = NS at all time points). SDS Cure was no different for oPFMT/PFE (75%, 15/20) compared to iPFMT (60%, 12/20, P = .3). PPD and IIQ-7 were also similar at all time points and demonstrated a similar rate of decrease over time through 12 months.
CONCLUSION: Significant and similar improvements in UI and QOL are seen both in men completing iPFMT or oPFMT/PFE programs. Our novel online program provides another option to improve PFMT/PFE access in men undergoing RALP.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of patients receiving iPFMT versus oPFMT/PFE with minimum 12-month follow-up. Outcomes were assessed at 3 weeks, 3-, 6-, and 12 months following robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy using validated ICIQ-MLUTS and IIQ-7 questionnaires and additional items (daily pad use [PPD] and satisfaction). The primary study outcome was ICIQ-MLUTS SUI domain score (SDS). Secondary outcomes were PPD, PPD cure (0 PPD at 12 months), SUI cure (12-month SDS=baseline score), and QOL score (IIQ-7 Sum).
RESULTS: Analysis included 41 men. Though men enrolled in oPFMT/PFE demonstrated lower SUI domain scores than iPFMT at most time points (3wk P <.01, 3 mo P = .04, 6 mo P = .15, 12 mo P = .04), the rate of improvement from 3 weeks to other time points was similar between groups (P = NS at all time points). SDS Cure was no different for oPFMT/PFE (75%, 15/20) compared to iPFMT (60%, 12/20, P = .3). PPD and IIQ-7 were also similar at all time points and demonstrated a similar rate of decrease over time through 12 months.
CONCLUSION: Significant and similar improvements in UI and QOL are seen both in men completing iPFMT or oPFMT/PFE programs. Our novel online program provides another option to improve PFMT/PFE access in men undergoing RALP.