Show simple item record

dc.contributorUniversitat Ramon Llull. Facultat de Ciències de la Salut Blanquerna
dc.contributor.authorPané‑Alemany, R.
dc.contributor.authorRamírez García, Inés
dc.contributor.authorCarralero‑Martínez, A.
dc.contributor.authorBlanco Ratto, Laia
dc.contributor.authorKauffmann, Stéphanie
dc.contributor.authorSánchez-Ruiz, Emília
dc.date.accessioned2022-02-28T09:23:10Z
dc.date.accessioned2023-07-12T12:05:09Z
dc.date.available2022-02-28T09:23:10Z
dc.date.available2023-07-12T12:05:09Z
dc.date.created2020-03-02
dc.date.issued2021-01-28
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14342/732
dc.description.abstractBackground Radical prostatectomy is the gold standard treatment for men with localized prostate cancer. This technique is associated with post-operative urinary incontinence. Pelvic floor physiotherapy is a conservative, painless and economical treatment for this specific situation. Kegel exercises and perineal electrostimulation are common techniques to train pelvic floor muscles. The perineal electrostimulation can be applied to the patient with surface electrodes or by an intra-cavitary anal probe. This study proposes that transcutaneous perineal electrostimulation is as effective as intra-cavitary electrostimulation in reducing urinary incontinence secondary to radical prostatectomy. The main objective is to compare the efficacy of the treatment with transcutaneous perineal electrostimulation versus the same intra-cavitary treatment to reduce the magnitude of urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy, and the impact on the quality of life. Methods This single-blind equivalence randomized controlled trial will include 70 man who suffer urinary incontinence post radical prostatectomy. Participants will be randomized into surface electrodes group and intra-anal probe group. The groups will receive treatment for 10 consecutive weeks. Outcomes include changes in the 24-h Pad Test, and ICIQ-SF, SF-12 and I-QoL questionnaires. Clinical data will be collected at baseline, 6 and 10 weeks after the first session, and 6 months after the end of treatment. Discussion The results will allow us to prescribe the most beneficial perineal electrostimulation technique in the treatment of urinary incontinence derived from radical prostatectomy.eng
dc.format.extent6 p.cat
dc.language.isoengcat
dc.publisherBioMed Centralcat
dc.relation.ispartofBMC Urology, 2021, vol. 21, núm. article 12cat
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights© L'autor/a
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourceRECERCAT (Dipòsit de la Recerca de Catalunya)
dc.subject.otherIncontinència urinària -- Tractamentcat
dc.subject.otherIncontinència urinària -- Rehabilitaciócat
dc.subject.otherEstimulació elèctricacat
dc.titleEfficacy of transcutaneous perineal electrostimulation versus intracavitary anal electrostimulation in the treatment of urinary incontinence after a radical prostatectomy: randomized controlled trial study protocolcat
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlecat
dc.typeinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioncat
dc.rights.accessLevelinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.embargo.termscapcat
dc.subject.udc615
dc.subject.udc616.6
dc.identifier.doihttps://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12894-020-00718-ycat


Files in this item

 

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Share on TwitterShare on LinkedinShare on FacebookShare on TelegramShare on WhatsappPrint