Erectile Function and Sexual Satisfaction Before and After Penile Prosthesis Implantation in Radical Prostatectomy Patients: A Comparison with Patients with Vasculogenic Erectile Dysfunction
| Autor: | A. Faix, Jean Pierrevelcin, Jack-Charles Tremeaux, Frédéric Staerman, Johann Menard |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2011 |
| Předmět: |
Male
medicine.medical_specialty Time Factors Databases Factual Urology Endocrinology Diabetes and Metabolism medicine.medical_treatment Statistics as Topic Vasculogenic erectile dysfunction Personal Satisfaction Penile Implantation Impotence Vasculogenic Prostate cancer Endocrinology Surveys and Questionnaires medicine Health Status Indicators Humans Retropubic space Prostatectomy business.industry Prostatic Neoplasms Penile prosthesis Middle Aged Erectile function medicine.disease Surgery Psychiatry and Mental health Treatment Outcome Erectile dysfunction Reproductive Medicine business |
| Zdroj: | The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 8:3479-3486 |
| ISSN: | 1743-6095 |
| Popis: | Introduction Patients with erectile dysfunction (ED) after radical prostatectomy (RP) may benefit from penile prosthesis (PP) implantation after failure of less invasive treatments. Aim To assess surgical outcomes and satisfaction after PP implantation in RP patients and compare the results with those in patients with vasculogenic ED (controls). Methods A database of 415 consecutive PPs (January 1996–December 2008) was used to collate data on preimplantation ED treatments, surgical complications, satisfaction, and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) scores before and 3 months after implantation. The results for 90 post-RP implants (79 primary, 11 secondary) and 131 implants for vasculogenic ED were compared. Main Outcome Measures The main outcome measures of this study are intra- and postoperative complications and IIEF domain scores. Results Mean follow-up of RP patients was 37.6 ± 26.8 months. Mean interval between RP and PP implantation was 31.5 ± 28.7 months. Nearly all primary implants (96.2%) were inflatable (3-piece, 70.1%; 2-piece, 24.1%). There was no significant difference between groups in terms of rates of infection (1.1%), mechanical failure (3.3%), and other surgical complications requiring revision surgery (migration, auto-inflation) (4.4%). For primary implants, the mean preimplantation IIEF score (all items) was significantly lower in RP patients than in controls (14.7 ± 5.9 vs. 22.6 ± 10.8, P = 0.003), chiefly because of significantly lower scores for erectile function, intercourse satisfaction, and orgasmic function. After PP implantation in RP patients, the scores for all domains improved, but the total score remained significantly lower than in controls (63.1 ± 7.0 vs. 68.5 ± 6.9, P = 0.005). The orgasmic function score was significantly lower ( P P = 0.3). Conclusions . PP implantation after RP is associated with low morbidity and high satisfaction. It improves the scores for all IIEF domains and, in particular, erectile function. Fibrosis of the retropubic space may require a second incision for reservoir placement or implantation of a 2-piece PP. Menard J, Tremeaux J-C, Faix A, Pierrevelcin J, and Staerman F. Erectile function and sexual satisfaction before and after penile prosthesis implantation in radical prostatectomy patients: A comparison with patients with vasculogenic erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med **;**:**–**. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Plný text