Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in elderly men, and radical prostatectomy is a widely used treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer. While many men experience temporary urinary function issues after surgery, most recover over one to two years. However, a significant number of patients face persistent urinary incontinence, severely impacting their quality of life. This ongoing condition leads to a range of challenges, including physical, emotional, social, and occupational difficulties, as well as significant hygiene concerns. Furthermore, urinary incontinence imposes substantial costs on both patients and healthcare systems.
The management of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPI) remains a topic of debate. Non-surgical treatments, such as pelvic floor exercises and medications, are often explored before considering more invasive surgical options. However, the efficacy of both approaches varies, and the decision between surgery and conservative management can be complex.
Post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPI) refers to the persistent loss of bladder control following a prostatectomy, particularly after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer. The prevalence of PPI varies significantly, ranging from 1% to 87%, depending on factors such as the surgical technique, the timing of evaluation, and the definition of incontinence used. Most men experience a temporary decline in urinary function immediately after surgery, with gradual recovery over the following months. Approximately 68–97% of patients regain continence within one year, with further improvements up to two years post-surgery.
PPI can significantly affect a patient's daily life, causing emotional distress, social isolation, and challenges with physical and occupational functioning. In the short term, patients may experience stress and inconvenience, but long-term effects can be even more debilitating, leading to chronic discomfort and reduced quality of life.
Treatment options for PPI include both non-surgical and surgical interventions. The decision between these options depends on the severity of incontinence, patient preferences, and the expected outcomes of each approach.
Surgical interventions for PPI range from minimally invasive injectables to mechanical implants, each with varying success and safety profiles.
Bulking Agents:
Injectable bulking agents, such as Opsys®, are designed to increase urethral coaptation by augmenting the submucosal space. Despite their appeal for mild stress urinary incontinence (SUI), recent evidence from a single-centre pilot study of 10 men revealed disappointing outcomes. Only 1 patient achieved treatment success, while 8 experienced failure. This worsening, along with complications in 40% of patients (e.g., haematuria, urinary frequency), suggests that injections are neither effective nor safe for managing male SUI after prostatectomy.
Male Synthetic Slings:
Synthetic slings offer a passive support mechanism beneath the urethra. A comparative study between bone-anchored male slings (BAMS) and transobturator male slings (TOMS) showed superior outcomes with TOMS. The success rate for TOMS reached 77% compared to 37% with BAMS. TOMS patients also reported higher satisfaction . Key predictors of sling failure included preoperative severity of incontinence and prior urethral trauma.
Adjustable Continence Therapies (ACTs):
ACTs provide a modifiable solution by allowing postoperative volume adjustments. These systems compress the urethra via fluid-filled balloons, tailored to patient response. Reported cure rates range from 50–70%, with reoperation rates around 20–30%, mainly due to device-related complications like migration or leakage.
Artificial Urinary Sphincters (AUS):
Considered the gold standard, AUS offers mechanical control of urinary flow. Pooled analysis from 19 studies revealed a pad reduction of ~4/day and a dry rate of 52%, with an 82% “social dry” rate. While reoperation rates vary (10–30%), AUS significantly improves quality of life despite low GRADE evidence for cure rates.
Post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) can be managed with various non-surgical strategies aimed at improving continence and enhancing quality of life. These include lifestyle modifications, pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT), use of containment devices, and pharmacological interventions.
Lifestyle changes such as weight loss, smoking cessation, increased physical activity, and dietary adjustments may help alleviate symptoms, although most supporting evidence stems from studies on female populations. Nonetheless, these modifications are generally encouraged due to their overall health benefits.
Pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) is widely studied in PPI. While a Cochrane review found no significant difference in continence within 12 months compared to control groups, other meta-analyses reported PFMT—especially when combined with biofeedback or electrical stimulation—significantly reduced the time to continence recovery. Preoperative PFMT in men undergoing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) was particularly effective in reducing early incontinence duration and severity. Notably, even written instructions for PFMT were found nearly as effective as supervised programs, enhancing accessibility and adherence.
Containment options such as absorbent pads, penile clamps, urinary catheters, and body-worn urinals offer individualized solutions. One randomized controlled trial showed most men preferred pads at night, while combining devices with pads during the day offered better flexibility and satisfaction. In this context, QuickChange Wraps present a highly practical solution—particularly for men with mobility limitations or those requiring caregiver assistance. These wraps are easy to apply and remove without needing to fully undress, minimizing disruption and reducing skin irritation.
Pharmacological treatment—most notably with duloxetine—has shown promising short-term results. Two randomized trials comparing PFMT plus duloxetine versus PFMT alone demonstrated superior continence rates: 78% vs. 52% at 4 months, and 96.5% vs. 87% at 12 months. Systematic reviews report a mean dry rate of 58%, mean pad use reduction of 61%, and 64% overall patient satisfaction. However, duloxetine is associated with side effects (e.g., nausea, dizziness), leading to a 21% discontinuation rate due to adverse events and a 38% overall discontinuation rate.
Patient factors such as age, comorbidities, and personal preferences play a crucial role in selecting appropriate non-surgical interventions. These conservative strategies, though varied in effectiveness, remain essential first-line approaches to manage PPI and improve patients' daily functioning and quality of life.
Surgical intervention for post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI) offers the potential for high cure rates and meaningful improvements in quality of life, especially in cases resistant to conservative management. Artificial urinary sphincters (AUS) show the highest reported cure rate at 74.0%, followed by adjustable continence therapies (ACT) at 63.2%, and male slings at 58.6%. These procedures can restore continence and significantly enhance daily comfort and social confidence in well-selected patients.
However, these benefits must be weighed against notable risks. Reoperation rates remain a serious concern, especially for AUS (22.2%) and ACT (23.8%), often due to mechanical failure, erosion, or infection. Even male slings, which have a lower reoperation rate of 5.8%, are associated with limited evidence of long-term success and are not broadly endorsed in clinical guidelines. The adjustable sling systems, in particular, have raised concerns due to higher complication rates and less predictable outcomes.
Patient selection plays a crucial role in surgical success. Prior radiation therapy, severe baseline incontinence, previous urethral or anti-incontinence surgeries, and detrusor dysfunction all increase the likelihood of failure and complications. Additionally, some procedures like Pro-ACT balloon implantation carry a 25% explantation rate and should be limited to specialized centers.
In comparison to non-surgical approaches—which carry lower risks but often offer only partial symptom relief—surgical options may offer a more definitive solution but with increased uncertainty and complexity. Shared decision-making is essential, ensuring patients understand both the potential benefits and the risks supported by the current, often low- to moderate-quality, evidence.
Given the uncertainty surrounding the long-term benefits and risks of surgical treatments for post-prostatectomy incontinence (PPI), patient involvement in the decision-making process is essential. While surgical options are widely used, current evidence suggests potentially important harms and lacks high-quality support for many interventions. This underlines the need for full transparency during consultations.
Shared decision-making ensures that patients and healthcare providers collaborate to weigh the pros and cons of each treatment path. Patients should be encouraged to share their values, daily needs, and expectations—whether that’s prioritizing improved quality of life, avoiding reoperations, or maintaining independence.
Patient advocacy groups, such as the cancer societies, play a vital role in offering accessible, up-to-date information and support. These resources can empower patients to ask informed questions and feel confident in their choices.
The management of post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence (PPI) remains complex, with surgical and non-surgical approaches offering varying degrees of success and risk. While surgical interventions like artificial urinary sphincters and male slings can provide meaningful relief for some, they come with significant uncertainties and a notable risk of complications, including the need for reoperations. Current evidence is of low to moderate quality, making informed, shared decision-making essential.
Non-surgical management—including pelvic floor muscle training, lifestyle changes, pharmacotherapy, and containment devices—offers a safer and often more accessible alternative, especially for men prioritizing long-term quality of life and minimal invasiveness.
For men seeking dignity, comfort, and ease of use in conservative PPI management, QuickChange Wraps offer a practical, discreet solution—especially for those needing caregiver support. You can buy a 10 Count Trial Pack here or request a professional-use sample pack for healthcare institutions here.
Alan, C., Eren, A. E., Ersay, A. R., Kocoglu, H., Basturk, G., & Demirci, E. (2015). Efficacy of duloxetine in the early management of urinary continence after radical prostatectomy. Current Urology, 8(1), 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1159/000365688
Anderson, C. A., Omar, M. I., Campbell, S. E., Hunter, K. F., Cody, J. D., & Glazener, C. M. (2015). Conservative management for postprostatectomy urinary incontinence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2015(1), CD001843. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001843.pub5
Choinière, R., Violette, P. D., Morin, M., Tu, L. M., Guyatt, G. H., Reed, C., Philie, C.-A., Legault, B., Beaudry, M.-M., Ahmed, M. M., & Richard, P. O. (2022). Evaluation of benefits and harms of surgical treatments for post-radical prostatectomy urinary incontinence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. European Urology Focus, 8(4), 915–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2021.07.014
Crites, M. A., Sorial, A., & Ghoniem, G. M. (2011). The role of synthetic slings in male stress incontinence. Arab Journal of Urology, 9(2), 129–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2011.06.011
Demeestere, A., de Guerry, M. L., Bergot, C., de Hauteclocque, A., Hascoet, J., Gamé, X., Bajeot, A. S., Peyronnet, B., Capon, G., Perrouin-Verbe, M. A., & Biardeau, X. (2022). Adjustable continence therapy (ACT®) balloons to treat neurogenic and non-neurogenic female urinary incontinence. Neurourology and Urodynamics, 41(1), 313–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.24822
Gacci, M., De Nunzio, C., Sakalis, V., Rieken, M., Cornu, J. N., & Gravas, S. (2023). Latest evidence on post-prostatectomy urinary incontinence. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(3), 1190. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12031190
Imamura, M., Williams, K., Wells, M., & McGrother, C. (2015). Lifestyle interventions for the treatment of urinary incontinence in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2015(12), CD003505. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003505.pub5
Kielb, S., Dunn, R. L., Rashid, M. G., Murray, S., Sanda, M. G., Montie, J. E., & Wei, J. T. (2001). Assessment of early continence recovery after radical prostatectomy: Patient reported symptoms and impairment. Journal of Urology, 166(3), 958–961.
Li, Y., Li, X., & Yang, Q. (2023). Effectiveness of artificial urinary sphincter to treat stress incontinence after prostatectomy: A meta-analysis and systematic review. PLoS ONE, 18(9), e0290949. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0290949
Litwin, M. S., Melmed, G. Y., & Nakazon, T. (2001). Life after radical prostatectomy: A longitudinal study. Journal of Urology, 166(2), 587–592.
Løvvik, A., Müller, S., & Patel, H. R. (2016). Pharmacological treatment of post-prostatectomy incontinence: What is the evidence? Drugs & Aging, 33(8), 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-016-0388-8
Macaulay, M., Broadbridge, J., Gage, H., Williams, P., Birch, B., Moore, K. N., Cottenden, A., & Fader, M. J. (2015). A trial of devices for urinary incontinence after treatment for prostate cancer. BJU International, 116(3), 432–442. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13016
Tutolo, M., Cornu, J. N., Bauer, R. M., Ahyai, S., Bozzini, G., Heesakkers, J., Drake, M. J., Tikkinen, K. A. O., Launonen, E., Larré, S., Thiruchelvam, N., Lee, R., Li, P., Favro, M., Zaffuto, E., Bachmann, A., Martinez-Salamanca, J. I., Pichon, T., De Nunzio, C., Ammirati, E., Haab, F., & Van Der Aa, F. (2019). Efficacy and safety of artificial urinary sphincter (AUS): Results of a large multi-institutional cohort of patients with mid-term follow-up. Neurourology and Urodynamics, 38(2), 710–718. https://doi.org/10.1002/nau.23901
van Uhm, J. I. M., Vermeer, M., Elzevier, H. W., Noordzij, J. W., Koldewijn, E. L., & Cornel, E. B. (2018). Injectable bulking agent to treat postprostatectomy urinary incontinence: A safety and effectiveness pilot study. BioMed Research International, 2018, 2796967. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2796967
Zorn, K. C., Gofrit, O. N., Orvieto, M. A., Mikhail, A. A., Zagaja, G. P., & Shalhav, A. L. (2007). Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy: Functional and pathologic outcomes with interfascial nerve preservation. European Urology, 51(3), 755–762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.10.019