PubMed · 6627421
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
G B Ariel. 1983. Resistive training.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6627421/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is a common long-term complication after radical prostatectomy. Spontaneous recovery of normal urinary control after surgery can take 1-2 years. We aimed to investigate whether there was any beneficial effect of pelvic-floor re-education for patients with urinary incontinence as a result of radical prostatectomy. METHODS: 102 consecutive incontinent patients who had had radical retropubic prostatectomy for clinically localised prostate cancer and who could comply with the ambulatory treatment schedule in our hospital were randomised, after catheter removal, into a treatment group (n=50) and a control group (n=52). Patients in the treatment group took part in a pelvic-floor re-education programme for as long as they were incontinent, and for a maximum of 1 year. The control group received placebo therapy. The primary endpoint was continence rate at 3 months. Incontinence was assessed objectively with the 1 h and 24 h pad tests and subjectively by the visual analogue scale. The groups were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis by ANOVA and chi2-test. FINDINGS: In the treatment group continence was achieved after 3 months in 43 (88%) of 48 patients. In the control group, continence returned after 3 months in 29 (56%) of 52 patients. At 1 year, the difference in proportion between treatment and control group was 14% (95% CI 2-27). In the treatment group improvement in both duration (log-rank test, p=0.0001) and degree of incontinence (Wald test, p=0.0010) was significantly better than in the control group. INTERPRETATION: Pelvic-floor re-education should be considered as a first-line option in curing incontinence after radical prostatectomy.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to compare blood pressure (BP) biofeedback treatment (BF) effects between white-coat hypertension and essential hypertension. METHODS: Fifteen white-coat hypertensive out-patients and 23 essential hypertensive out-patients were randomly assigned to groups A or B. Subjects in group A underwent BF once a week for a total of four sessions. Those in group B visited the clinic only to measure BP and later underwent the same BF. RESULTS: In group A, BPs of white-coat hypertensives and essential hypertensives were significantly reduced by 22/11 and 14/8 mmHg, respectively. In group B, they were unchanged during the same period but later suppressed by BF. Under BF, pulse and respiratory rates were significantly higher, and elevation of diastolic BP due to mental stress testing was better suppressed in white-coat hypertensives than in essential hypertensives. CONCLUSION: This treatment was effective in both types of hypertension, and pressor response to stress seems to be important in the differentiated BF effect.