Erectile dysfunction associated with radical prostatectomy: appropriateness and methods to preserve potency
| Autor: | Yu V Lerner, M V Yurova, A V Amosov, E V Shpot, Ya N Chernov, D V Chinenov |
|---|---|
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
integumentary system business.industry Prostatectomy Incidence (epidemiology) medicine.medical_treatment 030232 urology & nephrology Urology Retrospective cohort study General Medicine Nomogram medicine.disease 03 medical and health sciences Prostate cancer 0302 clinical medicine Erectile dysfunction Quality of life medicine Potency 030212 general & internal medicine business |
| Zdroj: | Scopus-Elsevier |
| Popis: | RELEVANCE Erectile dysfunction (ED) associated with radical prostatectomy (RP) affects 25-75% of patients and has a significant negative impact on their quality of life AIM: To analyze the maintenance of erectile function after RP depending on the type of endoscopic access and nerve-sparing. MATERIALS AND METHODS This retrospective study comprised 231 patients with localized prostate cancer, who underwent surgery between February 2015 and February 2016. Surgery was performed using one of three approaches: laparoscopic, extraperitoneoscopic or robot-assisted. Nerve-sparing surgery was chosen were based on the Briganti nomogram (low risk of extraprostatic extension), Partins table, and taking into account the patients desire to maintain EF. EF and the quality of life were evaluated using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) questionnaire and the QoL (Quality of Life) scale. RESULTS Nerve-sparing RP was performed in 153 patients. Nerve-sparing RP did not differ significantly from non-nerve sparing RP with regard to operative time (p=0.064) and blood loss (p=0.073). According to the pathomorphological study, the prostatic capsule was intact, and surgical margins were negative in all cases. The incidence of significant ED and complete loss of erectile function was greater in patients after non-nerve sparing RP compared with nerve sparing RP [(5.0 (0-10.0) vs. 6.5 (0.8-19,0) points according to the IIEF-5 scale, p=0.271)]; 96.2% versus 72.2% (p |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|