This study aimed to determine whether patients with persistent erectile dysfunction (ED), minimum 12 months after radical prostatectomy (RP), experienced a better recovery of erectile function (EF) with pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) compared with patients without this intervention. Second, we aimed to investigate the effect of PFMT on climacturia. All patients, who underwent RP, with persistent ED of minimum 1 year post operation were eligible. The treatment group started PFMT immediately at 12 months post operation and the control group started at 15 months after RP. All patients received PFMT during 3 months. The sample size needed to detect with 80% power a 6 points-difference regarding the EF-domain of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), was at least 12 subjects per group. Patients were evaluated using the IIEF and questioned regarding climacturia. Differences between groups at 15 months were evaluated with Mann–Whitney U-test and Fisher’s exact test. As a result, the treatment group had a significantly better EF than the control group at 15 months after surgery (P=0.025). Other subdomains of the IIEF remained constant for both groups. The effect of PFMT was maintained during follow-up. At 15 months, a significantly higher percentage of patients in the treatment group showed an improvement regarding climacturia (P=0.004).
Erectile dysfunction (ED) is the persistent inability to attain and maintain an erection with sufficient rigidity to perform satisfactory penetrative sexual activity.1
ED remains a significant consequence in 19%–74% patients undergoing a nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (RP).2 Different treatment options for ED are available. Phosphodiesterase-5-inhibitors (PDE5-i) currently dominate the treatment strategy for ED. However, lack of efficacy leads to discontinuation in >50% of cases.3
Several efficacy studies indicated pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) as an effective treatment for men with ED without previous pelvic surgery. However, most studies used different programs and small sample sizes.4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Only one randomized controlled trial (RCT) was reported concerning the effect of PFMT on ED in men without an RP.8 In the treatment group (PFMT+lifestyle advice), 40% of the participants attained normal erectile function (EF), 35% showed some improvement and 25% did not improve.8 After RP, only 1 RCT (n=52) and 1 case study were mentioned, suggesting improved EF after PFMT.9, 10 In the treatment group (starting PFMT immediately after catheter removal), 47% of patients recovered potency versus 12.5% in the control group (verbal instructions) at 12 months after surgery.10 Sighinolfi et al.9 offered PFMT for persistent ED, 12–18 months after RP, resulting in improved EF in all three patients. However, no RCT investigated the effect of PFMT for ED, taking into account a period of spontaneous recovery of minimum 12 months.
Our primary aim was to determine whether patients, minimum 12 months after RP, with persistent ED experienced a better recovery of ED with PFMT compared with patients without treatment. Our secondary aim was to investigate the effect of PFMT on climacturia.
Patients and methods
Between September 2010 and July 2011, patients with persistent ED, minimum 1 year after RP, were eligible to participate. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are described in Table 1. Patients with remaining incontinence, other than climacturia, at the time of inclusion were not eligible. All patients signed written informed consent.
Preoperative and 12 months after surgery, patients filled out the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), consisting of 15 items regarding EF, orgasmic function, sexual desire, intercourse satisfaction and overall satisfaction.14 Eligible participants were randomized into the treatment group, starting PFMT immediately, or the control group, starting PFMT at 15 months after surgery, to control for further spontaneous recovery of EF. Computerized randomization was performed within each stratum by using permuted blocks (size=4). Strata were age (<65 vs ⩾65) and EF IIEF subdomain (IIEF-EF) score at 12 months post operation (⩽12 vs >12).
All patients received equal individual PFMT, manually controlled by the therapist. Exercises were supported with electrostimulation during 10 min (biphasic symmetric current (constant voltage), intensity as high as possible, not painful, frequency: 50 Hz and pulse duration: 600 μs). PFMT was organized once a week (first 6 weeks) and once every fortnight (next 6 weeks). In addition, the patients performed a home PFMT program (60 contractions per day, spread over 2 sessions). The PFMT was focused at improving strength and endurance of the pelvic floor muscles, advanced coordination and analytical exercises, and pelvic floor muscle exercises combined with dual tasks in varying body positions.
All patients were treated by the same therapist. Patients were not allowed to use PDE5-i or other aids to improve EF during treatment. During follow-up, PDE5-i were allowed if desirable. When evaluated, patients always had to indicate their EF without any interference of PDE5-i.
Our primary outcome was the IIEF-EF. Secondary outcomes were all other IIEF subdomains, a visual analog scale assessing erectile quality (hardness, length, tumescence, elevation and persistence) and a yes/no question regarding climacturia during sexual activity. After randomization, patients in both groups filled out the IIEF, visual analog scale and climacturia question (at 12 months) (Figure 1). The treatment group started PFMT immediately; the control group started 3 months later (at 15 months). When the control group started treatment, these patients filled out the IIEF again and answered the same questions. All patients were re-evaluated after 3 months of treatment. Three months after finishing the program, patients were contacted once again for re-evaluation (Figure 1). The IIEF, visual analog scale and the climacturia question were filled out at home and sent back to an independent person.
Sample size and statistical analysis
The required sample size was calculated to have 80% power to detect a difference in change of the IIEF-EF score between the control and treatment group based on a two-sided unpaired Mann–Whitney U-test (α=5%). Information on the s.d. of the scores is available in the literature (for example, see Dorey et al.8); however, estimates on the variability of the changes are lacking. Therefore, a blinded interim analysis after inclusion of 20 subjects was performed. This interim analysis revealed that the s.d. of the differences equaled 5.0. Power calculation revealed that at least 12 subjects per group were needed to detect a difference of 6 points (minimal clinical important difference (MCID)15) with a power of 80%.
Mann–Whitney U-test and Fisher’s exact test were used to compare the changes in scores (IIEF and visual analog scale) and the proportion of patients with an improvement in climacturia between treatment and control group at 15 months, respectively. Changes in scores between first and final PFMT for the whole group were evaluated with Wilcoxon signed rank tests. Analyses were performed using SPSS version 20 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA; α=0.05).
The procedures of the study received ethical approval from the commission medical ethics of the University Hospitals Leuven responsible for human/animal experimentation (ML7136). Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register No NTR 3180.
Thirty-three patients were included, with 16 patients randomized to the treatment group and 17 patients to the control group. Three patients were lost to follow-up within the first 6 weeks of treatment (relational problems, moving abroad for an indefinite period and severe lower back pain). One patient was lost to follow-up at 6 months because of incorrect completion of the IIEF. Both groups showed comparable clinical characteristics. Thirty-three patients were included, 16 patients were randomized to the treatment group and 17 to the control group. The mean age of respectively the treatment and the control group was 61.1 and 61.5 years. Furthermore, 13 and 3 patients in the treatment group and 11 and 6 patients in the control group underwent respectively an open and a robot RP. In addition, 7 and 9 patients in the treatment group and 6 and 11 patients in the control group underwent respectively a unilateral and a bilateral nerve-sparing procedure. The mean IIEF-EF score at the preoperative stage and at inclusion were respectively 26.9 and 6.7 for the treatment group and 23.8 and 9.5 for the control group. At inclusion, 14 patients in the treatment group and 12 patients in the control group had an IIEF score ⩽12. At the start of the treatment, nine and eight patients suffered from climacturia in the treatment and the control group, respectively. The mean duration of urinary incontinence was 48 days (median: 48 days) for the control group (range: 7–100 days) and 60 days (median: 36 days) for the treatment group (range: 2–316 days).
First, the efficacy of PFMT in the treatment (n=16) versus the control group (n=17) was investigated. In a second phase, an evaluation of change after PFMT for the whole group (n=33) was made.
Efficacy of PFMT in the treatment versus the control group
At 15 months, the treatment group scored significantly better than the control group concerning the change in EF (4.1 (5.6) versus −0.2 (2.4), P=0.025). Correction for both stratification factors (age and IIEF-EF at 12 months) gave comparable results (P=0.03).
For all other domains of the IIEF, there was no evidence for a change neither for a difference between both groups in change (Table 2).
At 15 months, the treatment group scored significantly better than the control group regarding the change in hardness, length, tumescence and elevation (Table 3). Persistence of the erection did not significantly differ between both groups.
Furthermore, at 15 months, a significantly higher percentage of patients in the treatment group showed an improvement of climacturia (6/14 versus 0/17, P=0.004).
Figure 2 represents the individual evolutions concerning EF over time in the treatment and control group separately. The effect of treatment regarding IIEF-EF was maintained in both groups during follow-up; the difference in EF score between the end of treatment and the last follow-up evaluation (P=0.925 for both groups combined) was not significant.
Evaluation of change after PFMT for the whole group (n=33)
During treatment, 4/14 (29%) and 5/16 (31%) patients ameliorated by ⩾6 points in the treatment and delayed treatment group, respectively (Figure 2).
After 3 months of treatment, EF changed significantly between the first and final treatment for the whole group (P=0.001).
Table 4 represents the number of patients in each IIEF-EF category preoperative, at the start and at the end of the intervention. None of the patients with an IIEF-EF score at final treatment ≤12 (severe–moderate ED) (n=18) could have sexual intercourse. Eight of these 18 patients tried PDE5-i during follow-up. Only one patient had been able to penetrate once with PDE5-i, all other patients recorded a lack of effect and several side effects. Both patients with mild-to-moderate ED (13–18) at the final treatment were able to have sexual intercourse, but indicated better erections with PDE5-i. The 5 patients with mild ED (19–24) were able to have sexual intercourse, but only 2 of them used PDE5-i during follow-up to extend persistence of the erection. Finally, zero of five patients without ED (25–30) used additional medication.
Satisfaction during sexual intercourse for the whole group (n=33) improved significantly between the first and last treatment (P=0.007). Orgasmic function (P=0.580), sexual desire (P=0.192) and overall satisfaction (P=0.056) remained constant.
Hardness, length, tumescence, elevation and persistence were all significantly improved between the first and final treatment for the whole group (P⩽0.01).
Finally, after 3 months of PFMT, climacturia was significantly decreased between the first (17/33) and final (5/30) treatment for the whole group (P=0.001). In addition, comparing the change in EF, due to therapy in patients who recovered from climacturia and those who did not, revealed that there was no significant difference (P= 0.529) between both groups.
Patients with ED ⩾12 months after RP were treated with PFMT during a period of 3 months.
In a first phase, the efficacy of PFMT in treatment versus control group was investigated. Our primary outcome EF improved significantly more in the treatment group than in the control group at 15 months. In addition, a significantly higher percentage of patients in the treatment group showed an improvement in climacturia.
In a second phase, the changes after PFMT for the whole group were evaluated. After 3 months of PFMT, EF and intercourse satisfaction were significantly changed between the first and final treatment. Other IIEF domains remained unchanged. Hardness, length, tumescence, elevation and persistence of erection significantly improved between the first and final treatment. Climacturia was significantly decreased between the first and final PFMT. Comparison of the change in EF, due to therapy in patients who recovered from climacturia against those who did not, revealed that there was no significant difference between both groups, indicating that recovery from climacturia was not the reason for a better EF.
After PFMT, 5/30 patients obtained normal erections. Seven more patients were able to have sexual intercourse, although their erection was not always sufficient. Eighteen patients had no functional erections and still had moderate-to-severe ED. However, we cannot conclude that patients with an initial IIEF-EF score ⩽12 are not eligible for physiotherapy, as 5 of them improved to scores of 18, 20, 21, 21 and 29, respectively.
A major strength of our study is that this is the first RCT evaluating the effect of PFMT in men with persistent ED after RP. Second, a simple treatment scheme during 3 months was used. Prota et al.10 also offered PFMT for ED after RP, but they started PFMT immediately after catheter withdrawal. In our study, all patients received PFMT immediately after RP, to alleviate incontinence. PFMT was continued until total continence (defined as 3 consecutive days of 0 g urine loss, weighted on a balance with an accuracy of 1 g) was achieved.16 Mean duration until total continence for the control and the treatment group was 48 and 60 days, respectively. In the current study, we offered a new series of PFMT, starting at 12 months after surgery for the treatment group and at 15 months after surgery for the control group. Third, the possibility that improvement in EF was caused by time itself was controlled by a waiting period of 3 months before starting PFMT for the control group. The results confirmed that the patients in the control group made no significant progress in this period. Consequently, until now only one case study was available concerning the effect of PFMT on climacturia.9 Furthermore, besides the IIEF, erectile quality and climacturia were asked to obtain an overall picture of the patient’s progress. Finally, our dropout rate was low compared with previous research.8
Several limitations have to be considered. Other research hypothesized that patients with post-prostatectomy ED might benefit from protection from structural changes by using PDE5-i.17 In our study, only two patients (one in every group) systematically used a daily low-dosage PDE5-i from 3 months post operation until the start of the study. Other patients used PDE5-i on demand (n=5) or not at all (n=26) in the first postoperative year. Second, it is noteworthy that no correction for multiple testing was considered for the secondary outcomes. Main interest in the exploration of these results was to verify a general pattern of improvement. Consistent with the main finding for IIEF-EF, several secondary outcomes (hardness, length, tumescence and so on) were also significantly ameliorated after 3 months of PFMT.
Some patients improved considerably on the IIEF-EF, but still needed additional medication during sexual intercourse. Future research has to reveal whether combining PFMT and medication could lead to lower dosages of PDE5-i, less side effects and better adherence.
Other studies mentioned positive results of PFMT for ED; however, this was in patients without a history of RP,4, 5, 6, 7, 8 or PFMT offered immediately after catheter withdrawal.4, 5, 6, 7, 8 In the last study, it was however not clear how much of the effect could be attributed to spontaneous recovery.10 The rationale behind the success of PFMT can be found in the decrease of venous outflow. Contraction of the pelvic floor muscles results in a higher pressure at the base of the penis, in particular the bulbocavernosus and the ischiocavernosus muscles encircle 33%–50% of the base of the penis and are responsible for preventing blood from escaping during an erection by exerting pressure on the deep dorsal vein. In addition, starting therapy with the least invasive option seems a logical strategy. Pelvic floor muscle exercises do not involve any risks and they are painless. The dropout rate is less than for other interventions and treatment modalities. If treatment is successful, the erection is spontaneous, and this in contrast to medication, injection therapy, the use of a vacuum pump or penile prosthesis.7, 8
To date, five RCTs evaluated the impact of the early use of PDE5-i in post-prostatectomy men with persistent ED.18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Only one study18 found a marked increase in return of normal spontaneous erections, but was stopped early. All other studies indicated no sustained effect on unassisted EF. As only a minority of patients, equally divided over both groups, used PDE5-i in the first postoperative year, this only had a small impact on our study.
Power calculation was based on Goldstein et al.,15 who defined an IIEF-EF difference of six points as the minimal clinical important difference.18 The mean IIEF-EF score at baseline was 11.5 points in their study and they only included men with ED without previous RP. Our patients were assigned to the control and treatment group at ⩾12 months after RP. The mean IIEF-EF scores at baseline were 9.5 and 7.5, respectively. A 6-pointimprovement corresponds to an improvement of minimum 52% (6/11.5) in Goldstein et al.15 This criterion might have been too ambitious for post-prostatectomy patients. In fact, 6/9.5 and 6/7.5 correspond to a minimal improvement of 63% and 80%, respectively, to be clinically relevant. A recent study of Rosen et al.,23 indicated that the receiver operating characteristic-based minimal clinical important difference is only four points. Maybe this is a more realistic measure in men after RP. In our trial, 6/14 (43%) in the treatment group and 7/16 (44%) in the delayed treatment group improved with 4 or more points during treatment. Rosen et al.23 further specified that minimal clinical important differences varied significantly according to baseline ED severity (mild:2, moderate: 5 and severe: 7). In our study, this would mean that 4/14 (28.5%) in the treatment group (mild (n=1), moderate (n=0) and severe (n=3)) and 8/16 (50%) in the delayed treatment group (mild (n=4), moderate (n=1) and severe (n=3)) ameliorated according to the ED severity.
In conclusion, patients, minimum 12 months after RP, with persistent ED experienced a better recovery of EF with PFMT compared with patients without PFMT. In addition, PFMT had a beneficial effect on climacturia.
NIH Consensus Conference. Impotence. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Impotence. JAMA 1993; 270: 83–90.
Ficarra V, Novara G, Ahlering TE, Costello A, Eastham JA, Graefen M et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting potency rates after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2012; 62: 418–430.
Hatzimouratidis K, Hatzichristou D . Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors: the day after. Eur Urol 2007; 51: 75–89.
Colpi G, Negri L, Scroppo F, Grugnetti C . Perineal floor rehabilitation: a new treatment for venogenic impotence. J Endocrinol Invest 1994; 17: 34.
Claes H, Baert L . Pelvic floor exercise versus surgery in the treatment of impotence. Br J Urol 1993; 71: 52–57.
Stief CG, Weller E, Noack T, Djamilian MH, Meschi M, Truss M et al. [Functional electromyostimulation of the penile corpus cavernosum (FEMCC)]. Initial results of a new therapeutic option of erectile dysfunction. Der Urol Ausg A 1996; 35: 321–325.
Van Kampen M, De Weerdt W, Claes H, Feys H, De Maeyer M, Van Poppel H . Treatment of erectile dysfunction by perineal exercise, electromyographic biofeedback, and electrical stimulation. Phys Ther 2003; 83: 536–543.
Dorey G, Speakman M, Feneley R, Swinkels A, Dunn C, Ewings P . Randomised controlled trial of pelvic floor muscle exercises and manometric biofeedback for erectile dysfunction. Br J Gen Pract 2004; 54: 819–825.
Sighinolfi MC, Rivalta M, Mofferdin A, Micali S, De Stefani S, Bianchi G . Potential effectiveness of pelvic floor rehabilitation treatment for postradical prostatectomy incontinence, climacturia, and erectile dysfunction: a case series. J Sex Med 2009; 6: 3496–3499.
Prota C, Gomes C, Ribeiro L, de Bessa JJ, Nakano E, Dall'Oglio M et al. Early postoperative pelvic-floor biofeedback improves erectile function in men undergoing radical prostatectomy: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Int J Impot Res 2012; 24: 174–178.
Choi JM, Nelson CJ, Stasi J, Mulhall JP . Orgasm associated incontinence (climacturia) following radical pelvic surgery: rates of occurrence and predictors. J Urol 2007; 177: 2223–2226.
Guay A, Seftel AD . Sexual foreplay incontinence in men with erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy: a clinical observation. Int J Impot Res 2008; 20: 199–201.
Tsivian M, Mayes JM, Krupski TL, Mouraviev V, Donatucci CF, Polascik TJ . Altered male physiologic function after surgery for prostate cancer: couple perspective. Int Braz J Urol 2009; 35: 673–682.
Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, Kirkpatrick J, Mishra A . The international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology 1997; 49: 822–830.
Goldstein I, Lue TF, Padma-Nathan H, Rosen RC, Steers WD, Wicker PA . Oral sildenafil in the treatment of erectile dysfunction. N Engl J Med 1998; 338: 1397–1404.
Geraerts I, Van Poppel H, Devoogdt N, Joniau S, Van Cleynenbreugel B, De Groef A et al. Influence of preoperative and postoperative pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) compared with postoperative PFMT on urinary incontinence after radical prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Eur Urol 2013; 64: 766–772.
Mostafa ME, Senbel AM, Mostafa T . Effect of chronic low-dose tadalafil on penile cavernous tissues in diabetic rats. Urology 2013; 81: 1253–1260.
Padma-Nathan H, McCullough AR, Levine LA, Lipshultz LI, Siegel R, Montorsi F et al. Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of postoperative nightly sildenafil citrate for the prevention of erectile dysfunction after bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Int J Impot Res 2008; 20: 479–486.
Montorsi F, Brock G, Lee J, Shapiro J, Van Poppel H, Graefen M et al. Effect of nightly versus on-demand vardenafil on recovery of erectile function in men following bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 2008; 54: 924–931.
Mulhall JP, Burnett AL, Wang R, McVary KT, Moul JW, Bowden CH et al. A phase 3, placebo controlled study of the safety and efficacy of avanafil for the treatment of erectile dysfunction after nerve sparing radical prostatectomy. J Urol 2013; 189: 2229–2236.
Montorsi F, Brock G, Stolzenburg J-U, Mulhall J, Moncada I, Patel HRH et al. Effects of tadalafil treatment on erectile function recovery following bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: a randomised placebo-controlled study (REACTT). Eur Urol 2014; 65: 587–596.
Pavlovich CP, Levinson AW, Su L-M, Mettee LZ, Feng Z, Bivalacqua TJ et al. Nightly vs on-demand sildenafil for penile rehabilitation after minimally invasive nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: results of a randomized double-blind trial with placebo. BJU Int 2013; 112: 844–851.
Rosen RC, Allen KR, Ni X, Araujo AB . Minimal clinically important differences in the erectile function domain of the international index of erectile function scale. Eur Urol 2011; 60: 1010–1016.
We acknowledge Miss K Sterckx and Miss H Lemkens for their help in the data collection. No funding was obtained for this study.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
About this article
Cite this article
Geraerts, I., Van Poppel, H., Devoogdt, N. et al. Pelvic floor muscle training for erectile dysfunction and climacturia 1 year after nerve sparing radical prostatectomy: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Impot Res 28, 9–13 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/ijir.2015.24
The Journal of Sexual Medicine (2020)
Climacturia: a comprehensive review assessing pathophysiology, prevalence, impact, and treatment options regarding the “leak of pleasure”
International Journal of Impotence Research (2020)
A Systematic Review of Pelvic Floor Muscle Training for Erectile Dysfunction After Prostatectomy and Recommendations to Guide Further Research
The Journal of Sexual Medicine (2020)
Intracavernous injection of size-specific stem cell spheroids for neurogenic erectile dysfunction: Efficacy and risk versus single cells
Pelvic Floor Muscle Training and Erectile Dysfunction in Radical Prostatectomy: A Randomized Controlled Trial Investigating a Non-Invasive Addition to Penile Rehabilitation
Sexual Medicine (2020)