Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2015 Feb;34(2):117-22.
doi: 10.1002/nau.22536. Epub 2013 Nov 27.

Penile vibratory stimulation in the treatment of post-prostatectomy incontinence: a randomized pilot study

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Penile vibratory stimulation in the treatment of post-prostatectomy incontinence: a randomized pilot study

Mikkel Fode et al. Neurourol Urodyn. 2015 Feb.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: conservative treatment; incontinence; nerve stimulation; penile vibratory stimulation; prostatic neoplasms; radical prostatectomy; urinary incontinence.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources