Comparison of the Efficacy of Perineal and Anal Electrical Stimulation in Patients with Urinary Incontinence After Radical Prostatectomy

Radical prostatectomy (RP) is a common procedure for the treatment of prostate cancer. However, postoperative urinary incontinence (UI) is an important reason for morbidity. UI negatively affects the quality of life in 30-50% of patients, especially in the early period (3 weeks to 6 months). However, it takes approximately 1 year to achieve continence (1).

Conservative treatment methods include pelvic floor muscle exercises (PFME) with or without biofeedback (BF), anal and perineal electrical stimulation (ES), magnetic stimulation (MS), compression (penile clamps), lifestyle changes and combinations of these methods (2).

ES artificially stimulates the pudendal nerve and its branches to cause direct and reflex responses of the urethral and periurethral striated muscles in women. ES also inhibits detrusor overactivity (3,4). There is conflicting evidence as to whether the addition of ES to treatment increases the efficacy of PFME alone in patients with UI after RP (Level of evidence:1b), (5). However, ES may benefit PFME for up to six months (Level of evidence: 2b), (5). Non-neurogenic male incontinence guidelines recommend PFME alone or in combination with BF and/or ES for men undergoing RP to accelerate improvement of UI (5).

Many studies have shown that anal ES alone (1,7,8) or in combination with PFME (4,9,10,11) is more effective than untreated (4,7,9,11) or placebo ES (8,12). There are only two randomised controlled trials in the literature evaluating the efficacy of perineal ES in patients with UI after RP (13,14). In the study by Yıldız et al. (13), the group receiving perineal ES and the control group receiving no treatment were compared in patients who developed UI after RP. The results showed that incontinence severity, incontinence episodes, quality of life and anxiety parameters improved significantly in the 8th week in the group receiving perineal ES compared to the control group. In the study by Pané-Alemany et al. (14), a group receiving perianal ES and a group receiving anal ES were compared in patients who developed UI after RP. In the study, it was shown that the efficacy of the two treatments was not statistically different.

Our study is the first prospective randomised controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of perineal and anal ES added to PFME in patients with UI after RP. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of perineal ES and anal ES added to PFME on clinical parameters related to UI, quality of life and sexual functions, depression and anxiety. In addition, patients' preparation time for stimulation, treatment satisfaction and discomfort levels will be evaluated.