Missing Script

Get updates

MS-N135 · Supportive care · Human evidence · Appraised 25 October 2026

Can pelvic-floor muscle training improve urinary control after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer?

Evidence at a glance

  • Evidence label: Supported conservative rehabilitation, with variable benefit and no clear best delivery method
  • Benefit: Randomized trials support faster early continence recovery for some men; correct technique and adherence matter.
  • Certainty: Moderate for short-term continence recovery, but lower for the size of long-term benefit because protocols and continence definitions vary.
  • Risk: Generally low; incorrect breath-holding or straining can worsen pelvic pressure, and persistent or severe leakage needs urologic assessment.

What was studied

Population and design: Trials have compared pre- and postoperative supervised pelvic-floor training with usual instructions, and have compared biofeedback-assisted with physiotherapist-guided programs. A 2019 randomized trial began a structured program five weeks before surgery and continued it for 12 weeks afterward.

Recent study: In 2026, 109 men were randomized to a noninvasive biofeedback device or conventional physiotherapist-guided training, both combined with twice-weekly high-effort resistance training for 12 weeks; 96 completed.

What the evidence found

The 2019 trial reported less pad-weight leakage and faster functional recovery with the structured prehabilitation program than with control care, although the small sample and open exercise design limit precision.

In the 2026 RECON trial, mean 24-hour leakage fell across both active programs. At least 50% leakage reduction occurred in 52.1% overall, with no clear difference between device and physiotherapist delivery (odds ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.53–2.66). The trial does not separate PFMT from the whole-body resistance program.

How to interpret it

PFMT is reasonable early conservative care, but a device has not proved superior to skilled instruction. Natural recovery after surgery is substantial, so within-group improvement alone is not proof. The evidence concerns urinary function, not PSA control, recurrence or survival.

Practical safety context

Technique should emphasize an isolated pelvic-floor contraction without repeated abdominal bracing or breath-holding. Ask when to start around the catheter and wound. Fever, inability to urinate, blood clots, severe pelvic pain or suddenly worsening leakage needs assessment.

Questions for the care team

  • Can a pelvic-health physiotherapist confirm that the right muscles are contracting?
  • Should training begin before surgery, and when is it safe to resume after catheter removal?
  • How will pad weight, pad number and quality of life be measured over time?

Funding and conflicts

The 2019 and 2026 reports should be read as rehabilitation trials with unavoidable participant blinding limitations. The 2026 device-versus-physiotherapist comparison found no primary-endpoint superiority; study funding and device relationships are reported in its full text.

Sources

Last literature search: 25 October 2026. Record appraisal: 25 October 2026. This page is educational and does not replace individualized medical advice. Symptom or function improvement must not be interpreted as evidence of tumor response, delayed recurrence or longer survival.