OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a progressive local treatment protocol for erectile dysfunction (ED) in patients after undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) for prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 85 patients (mean age 59.5 years, range 50--75) with ED after RRP. Treatment was offered in four progressive phases, with patients passing to the next phase only if they failed the previous one: in phase I patients used a vacuum erection device; in phase II, sildenafil; in phase III, intracorporal injection; and in phase IV, intracorporal injection plus the vacuum erection device. The patients were followed for 1 year. RESULTS: Of the 85 patients, 78 (92%) responded to the vacuum erection device (with an erection sufficient for vaginal penetration), but only 11 (14%) agreed to continue with it at home. Of the remaining 74 patients, 69 with no contraindications were given sildenafil and 14 (20%) had a positive response. Sixty patients were then treated with intracorporal injection and 51 (85%) had a positive response; four of the nine failures in phase III responded to intracorporal injection plus vacuum therapy. Five patients failed all four protocols. After 1 year of follow-up, 76 of the 80 patients were successfully continuing treatment at home; seven (9%) used the vacuum erection device, 11 (14%) sildenafil, 54 (71%) intracorporal injection and four (5%) intracorporal injection plus the vacuum erection device. CONCLUSION: Overall, this progressive treatment method gave a positive response in 80 of the 85 patients (94%). After 1 year of follow-up, 76 of the 80 patients (95%) continued to respond well. Of all the methods used, intracorporal injection was the most effective for ED after RRP.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a progressive local treatment protocol for erectile dysfunction (ED) in patients after undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) for prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 85 patients (mean age 59.5 years, range 50--75) with ED after RRP. Treatment was offered in four progressive phases, with patients passing to the next phase only if they failed the previous one: in phase I patients used a vacuum erection device; in phase II, sildenafil; in phase III, intracorporal injection; and in phase IV, intracorporal injection plus the vacuum erection device. The patients were followed for 1 year. RESULTS: Of the 85 patients, 78 (92%) responded to the vacuum erection device (with an erection sufficient for vaginal penetration), but only 11 (14%) agreed to continue with it at home. Of the remaining 74 patients, 69 with no contraindications were given sildenafil and 14 (20%) had a positive response. Sixty patients were then treated with intracorporal injection and 51 (85%) had a positive response; four of the nine failures in phase III responded to intracorporal injection plus vacuum therapy. Five patients failed all four protocols. After 1 year of follow-up, 76 of the 80 patients were successfully continuing treatment at home; seven (9%) used the vacuum erection device, 11 (14%) sildenafil, 54 (71%) intracorporal injection and four (5%) intracorporal injection plus the vacuum erection device. CONCLUSION: Overall, this progressive treatment method gave a positive response in 80 of the 85 patients (94%). After 1 year of follow-up, 76 of the 80 patients (95%) continued to respond well. Of all the methods used, intracorporal injection was the most effective for ED after RRP.