What does this research mean for the field?

Non-invasive biofeedback-assisted and conventional physiotherapist-guided pelvic floor muscle training, when combined with high-effort resistance training, are equally effective at significantly reducing urinary incontinence following radical prostatectomy. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

What question did this study set out to answer?

To compare the effects of high-effort resistance training combined with either non-invasive biofeedback-assisted pelvic floor muscle training or conventional physiotherapist-led pelvic training on post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence.

September 14, 2026BMC UrologyOpen Access

Non-invasive biofeedback-assisted vs. conventional pelvic floor muscle training combined with high-effort resistance training for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

MBMarko Babović DADavid Aguayo JWJoachim Wiskemann

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Randomized trial reveals equivalent reduction of urinary incontinence with biofeedback versus physiotherapist guidance in post-prostatectomy men, indicating both approaches are clinically viable.

Key Points

To compare the effects of high-effort resistance training combined with either non-invasive biofeedback-assisted pelvic floor muscle training or conventional physiotherapist-led pelvic training on post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence.
Randomized controlled trial (NCT06206993) allocating 109 men following radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer to biofeedback-assisted training (dPFMT, n=55) or conventional physiotherapeutic training (pPFMT, n=54).
Both groups completed a 12-week whole-body high-effort resistance training program conducted at moderate to high loads (>60% 1-repetition maximum to momentary failure).
Urinary leakage was quantified via a 24-hour pad weight test at baseline and week 12, defining treatment success as a ≥50% reduction in pad weight.
Treatment success (≥50% urinary leakage reduction) did not differ significantly between groups (OR = 1.19, 95% CI 0.53–2.66; p = 0.670) and was achieved by 52.1% of participants.
Across all 96 participants who completed the intervention, 24-hour pad weight significantly decreased from baseline to week 12 (mean change: -86.39 g, SD 336.25 g; p < 0.001).
In an exploratory subgroup analysis of responders, dPFMT produced a greater relative reduction in leakage than pPFMT (-83.97% [SD 13.88%] vs. -74.68% [SD 12.93%]; p = 0.017), while longer elapsed time since surgery negatively predicted success (p < 0.001).

Cite This Study

Babović et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6aa7b40e0926e14a848b37b5 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-026-02333-9

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

September 14, 2026BMC UrologyOpen Access

Non-invasive biofeedback-assisted vs. conventional pelvic floor muscle training combined with high-effort resistance training for urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

MBMarko Babović DADavid Aguayo JWJoachim Wiskemann

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Randomized trial reveals equivalent reduction of urinary incontinence with biofeedback versus physiotherapist guidance in post-prostatectomy men, indicating both approaches are clinically viable.

Key Points

To compare the effects of high-effort resistance training combined with either non-invasive biofeedback-assisted pelvic floor muscle training or conventional physiotherapist-led pelvic training on post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence.
Randomized controlled trial (NCT06206993) allocating 109 men following radical prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer to biofeedback-assisted training (dPFMT, n=55) or conventional physiotherapeutic training (pPFMT, n=54).
Both groups completed a 12-week whole-body high-effort resistance training program conducted at moderate to high loads (>60% 1-repetition maximum to momentary failure).
Urinary leakage was quantified via a 24-hour pad weight test at baseline and week 12, defining treatment success as a ≥50% reduction in pad weight.
Treatment success (≥50% urinary leakage reduction) did not differ significantly between groups (OR = 1.19, 95% CI 0.53–2.66; p = 0.670) and was achieved by 52.1% of participants.
Across all 96 participants who completed the intervention, 24-hour pad weight significantly decreased from baseline to week 12 (mean change: -86.39 g, SD 336.25 g; p < 0.001).
In an exploratory subgroup analysis of responders, dPFMT produced a greater relative reduction in leakage than pPFMT (-83.97% [SD 13.88%] vs. -74.68% [SD 12.93%]; p = 0.017), while longer elapsed time since surgery negatively predicted success (p < 0.001).

Cite This Study

Babović et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6aa7b40e0926e14a848b37b5 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-026-02333-9

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark