PURPOSE: Oral medications for treatment of erectile dysfunction may drastically increase health care expenses. Therefore, reimbursement for treatment will be limited in many countries. Proof of erectile dysfunction on an individual basis may be required. We determine whether erectile dysfunction can be proved by pharmacostimulation tests. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 77 consecutive patients with a median age of 54 years (range 25 to 75) who presented with previously untreated erectile dysfunction. Assessment included patient reported semiquantitative data on sexual erections (rigidity, ability for vaginal intromission, duration), standard clinical and laboratory tests, and intracavernous injection test and color duplex sonography with 10 microg. intracavernous prostaglandin E1. Data were compared on the basis of the most important complaint, namely whether vaginal intromission was impossible, feasible only with manual assistance or possible but not long enough for satisfactory sexual performance. RESULTS: Of the 77 patients 36 (47%) were unable to perform vaginal intromission, 28 (37%) needed manual help and 13 (17%) had erections sufficient for penetration but were not satisfied with sexual performance. Patient reports were reliable as shown by the significant correlation of items (r = 0.77) and significant discriminating power among categories for penetration (analysis of variance p <0.001). In contrast, clinical response to intracavernous pharmacostimulation and flow parameters assessed by color duplex sonography could not discriminate among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Erectile dysfunction could not be defined by pharmacostimulated erections but relevant erectile dysfunction was honestly reported. New and reliable tests for clinical assessment are required to support the application for reimbursement of treatment expenses for erectile dysfunction.
PURPOSE: Oral medications for treatment of erectile dysfunction may drastically increase health care expenses. Therefore, reimbursement for treatment will be limited in many countries. Proof of erectile dysfunction on an individual basis may be required. We determine whether erectile dysfunction can be proved by pharmacostimulation tests. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We prospectively evaluated 77 consecutive patients with a median age of 54 years (range 25 to 75) who presented with previously untreated erectile dysfunction. Assessment included patient reported semiquantitative data on sexual erections (rigidity, ability for vaginal intromission, duration), standard clinical and laboratory tests, and intracavernous injection test and color duplex sonography with 10 microg. intracavernous prostaglandin E1. Data were compared on the basis of the most important complaint, namely whether vaginal intromission was impossible, feasible only with manual assistance or possible but not long enough for satisfactory sexual performance. RESULTS: Of the 77 patients 36 (47%) were unable to perform vaginal intromission, 28 (37%) needed manual help and 13 (17%) had erections sufficient for penetration but were not satisfied with sexual performance. Patient reports were reliable as shown by the significant correlation of items (r = 0.77) and significant discriminating power among categories for penetration (analysis of variance p <0.001). In contrast, clinical response to intracavernous pharmacostimulation and flow parameters assessed by color duplex sonography could not discriminate among the groups. CONCLUSIONS:Erectile dysfunction could not be defined by pharmacostimulated erections but relevant erectile dysfunction was honestly reported. New and reliable tests for clinical assessment are required to support the application for reimbursement of treatment expenses for erectile dysfunction.