Pelvic floor muscle training after prostate surgery

Patricia Neumann, Peter Sutherland, Irmina Nahon, Shan Morrison

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

Abstract

The conclusion of the scientifically robust study by Cathryn Glazener and colleagues (July 23, p 328),1 that pelvic-floor muscle exercise taught by a continence health professional after prostate surgery is unlikely to be effective or cost effective, is misleading and possibly erroneous. Glazener and colleagues should have considered that their intervention was not effective and provided a more critical appraisal of its failure. The intervention was weak on several counts but particularly lacked a plausible biological rationale, since it did not address the importance of control of the urethral sphincter, which did not rate a mention anywhere. Men were only—and repeatedly—instructed to “contract the pelvic floor as if holding on to wind” and assessed at each of four visits per anum. This not only provided inappropriate sensory feedback but also taught and reinforced inappropriate motor control.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)119
Number of pages1
JournalThe Lancet
Volume379
Issue number9811
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 14 Jan 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Pelvic Floor
Prostate
Muscles
Sensory Feedback
Urethra
Exercise
Costs and Cost Analysis
Health

Cite this

Neumann, Patricia ; Sutherland, Peter ; Nahon, Irmina ; Morrison, Shan. / Pelvic floor muscle training after prostate surgery. In: The Lancet. 2012 ; Vol. 379, No. 9811. pp. 119.
@article{fc02624fe1fc415c8a97806d27db6961,
title = "Pelvic floor muscle training after prostate surgery",
abstract = "The conclusion of the scientifically robust study by Cathryn Glazener and colleagues (July 23, p 328),1 that pelvic-floor muscle exercise taught by a continence health professional after prostate surgery is unlikely to be effective or cost effective, is misleading and possibly erroneous. Glazener and colleagues should have considered that their intervention was not effective and provided a more critical appraisal of its failure. The intervention was weak on several counts but particularly lacked a plausible biological rationale, since it did not address the importance of control of the urethral sphincter, which did not rate a mention anywhere. Men were only—and repeatedly—instructed to “contract the pelvic floor as if holding on to wind” and assessed at each of four visits per anum. This not only provided inappropriate sensory feedback but also taught and reinforced inappropriate motor control.",
author = "Patricia Neumann and Peter Sutherland and Irmina Nahon and Shan Morrison",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
day = "14",
doi = "10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60056-7",
language = "English",
volume = "379",
pages = "119",
journal = "Lancet",
issn = "0140-6736",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "9811",

}

Neumann, P, Sutherland, P, Nahon, I & Morrison, S 2012, 'Pelvic floor muscle training after prostate surgery', The Lancet, vol. 379, no. 9811, pp. 119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60056-7

Pelvic floor muscle training after prostate surgery. / Neumann, Patricia; Sutherland, Peter; Nahon, Irmina; Morrison, Shan.

In: The Lancet, Vol. 379, No. 9811, 14.01.2012, p. 119.

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pelvic floor muscle training after prostate surgery

AU - Neumann, Patricia

AU - Sutherland, Peter

AU - Nahon, Irmina

AU - Morrison, Shan

PY - 2012/1/14

Y1 - 2012/1/14

N2 - The conclusion of the scientifically robust study by Cathryn Glazener and colleagues (July 23, p 328),1 that pelvic-floor muscle exercise taught by a continence health professional after prostate surgery is unlikely to be effective or cost effective, is misleading and possibly erroneous. Glazener and colleagues should have considered that their intervention was not effective and provided a more critical appraisal of its failure. The intervention was weak on several counts but particularly lacked a plausible biological rationale, since it did not address the importance of control of the urethral sphincter, which did not rate a mention anywhere. Men were only—and repeatedly—instructed to “contract the pelvic floor as if holding on to wind” and assessed at each of four visits per anum. This not only provided inappropriate sensory feedback but also taught and reinforced inappropriate motor control.

AB - The conclusion of the scientifically robust study by Cathryn Glazener and colleagues (July 23, p 328),1 that pelvic-floor muscle exercise taught by a continence health professional after prostate surgery is unlikely to be effective or cost effective, is misleading and possibly erroneous. Glazener and colleagues should have considered that their intervention was not effective and provided a more critical appraisal of its failure. The intervention was weak on several counts but particularly lacked a plausible biological rationale, since it did not address the importance of control of the urethral sphincter, which did not rate a mention anywhere. Men were only—and repeatedly—instructed to “contract the pelvic floor as if holding on to wind” and assessed at each of four visits per anum. This not only provided inappropriate sensory feedback but also taught and reinforced inappropriate motor control.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84855857653&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60056-7

DO - 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60056-7

M3 - Letter

VL - 379

SP - 119

JO - Lancet

JF - Lancet

SN - 0140-6736

IS - 9811

ER -