Whether the question is ejaculatory control or erectile function, no urology guideline recommends this training on its own for either. The guidelines that address behavioural approaches recommend them alongside medical treatment, not instead of it.
Start here
Pelvic floor muscle training has been studied for its effects on sexual and bladder function. Study quality varies and results differ between individuals. KegelPro does not treat any condition.
That sentence is doing a lot of work, so the rest of this article unpacks it. Most apps in this space will not show you this material, because the honest version is less exciting than the marketing version. We would rather you knew what you are signing up for.
The strongest finding: strength itself
The claim standing on the firmest ground is also the least glamorous one. Structured pelvic floor training reliably increases measurable pelvic floor muscle strength and endurance.
This is the best-supported part of the field because it is the part that gets measured directly rather than reported by the participant. Dorey 2004 used pressure measurement and clinician grading and found clear increases in both. Milios 2019 measured muscle function directly as well. When a trial puts an instrument on the muscle, the muscle gets stronger with training. That is a normal finding for skeletal muscle and it should not surprise anyone.
Dorey 2004 also noted something interesting: within that trial, the men whose measured pressures rose the most were the ones who did best overall, and men whose strength never rose much did not improve. That is a hint that strength gain is the mechanism rather than an expectation effect, though it is a within-trial observation, not proof.
Sexual function: real signals, small and imperfect trials
There is a genuine body of work here, going back to La Pera and Nicastro 1996, through Pastore 2012 and Pastore 2014, Lavoisier 2014, Lyu 2025, and reviewed by Myers and Smith 2019 and Wong 2020. Cohen, Gonzalez and Goldstein 2016 explains the plausible mechanism.
The honest summary is: the signals are real and mostly positive, and the trials are small, usually unblinded, often lack a sham comparison, and use protocols that differ from each other so much that no optimal one has been identified. Myers and Smith 2019 said exactly that. Wong 2020 reached the same verdict for the post-surgical context: mostly positive, methodologically weak, protocols inconsistent.
There is one result you should know about specifically, because it cuts against the marketing you will see elsewhere. de Oliveira 2026 is the most rigorous synthesis of randomized trials in this area to date, and it found that pelvic floor training delivered in isolation performed worse than the comparators it was tested against, including drug therapy and pelvic floor training combined with a device or with diaphragmatic breathing. Isolated training is not the strongest option available. That finding is a large part of why breathing work is mandatory in every KegelPro session rather than an optional extra.
It is also worth noting what the positive trials actually delivered. Pastore 2014 was a clinic-based program with a physiotherapist, electrical stimulation and biofeedback equipment, running an hour at a time. Dorey 2004 combined supervised sessions and pressure biofeedback with a daily home program. An app delivers the home exercise component of protocols like those. It does not deliver the clinician or the equipment, and it would be dishonest to imply otherwise.
Whether the question is ejaculatory control or erectile function, no urology guideline recommends this training on its own for either. The guidelines that address behavioural approaches recommend them alongside medical treatment, not instead of it.
Bladder function after prostate surgery: genuinely contested
This is the area where expectations run highest and the evidence is most divided, so it gets the plainest version here.
On the positive side, Van Kampen 2000 and Filocamo 2005 both found that guided pelvic floor re-education after surgery helped, and Milios 2019 found a higher-volume program outperformed usual care. Guidelines still recommend the approach: the AUA, GURS and SUFU 2024 guideline update says clinicians should offer pelvic floor muscle exercises in the immediate post-operative period, as a moderate recommendation.
On the negative side, Glazener 2011, the MAPS trials, is the largest and best-powered study in the field, and it found no difference at twelve months between formal one-to-one training and standard care, with narrow confidence intervals. Anderson 2015, the Cochrane review covering fifty trials, concluded that the value of conservative management remains uncertain.
You should not resolve that tension by picking the studies you prefer. The correct reading is that this is unsettled, that guidelines support offering the training anyway, and that nobody, including us, can promise you an outcome here.
What no one has figured out
Dumoulin 2011 remains the reference point on dosing: regimens vary so widely across trials that the optimal frequency and contraction count are still unresolved. Anyone selling you the one true protocol is overselling.
And the timeline is not short. Professional guidance and the trial literature converge on three to six months of consistent training before a change in muscle strength shows up, with maintenance continuing after that.
When to talk to a professional
An app cannot assess your pelvic floor. Book an appointment with your doctor or a pelvic health physiotherapist if you are unsure you are contracting the right muscles, if you have had prostate surgery or have one coming up, if you have pain in the pelvis, genitals or rectum or pain with ejaculation, if you have leakage or trouble emptying your bladder, or if you have trained consistently for three months and nothing has changed.