OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the erectile function following transrectal ultrasound-guided saturation biopsies of the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of the 150 patients included in the study, those with persistently elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level underwent saturation biopsy. A median of 22-core (minimum: 20; maximum: 30) prostate saturation biopsies was taken. Patients were evaluated for erectile function prebiopsy with the 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) and the IIEF-Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) domain scoring. Concomitant systemic diseases and medications that would interfere with erectile function were recorded. Eighty-eight patients reported to be prostate cancer-free underwent further evaluation with the IIEF-5 questionnaire at 1 and 6 mo postbiopsy. Severity of erectile dysfunction (ED) was classified into four categories. RESULTS: The patients' ages, serum PSA levels, prostate volumes, and number of cores showed no significant correlation with changes in ED scores after the prostate saturation biopsies. According to the IIEF-5, for patients who were previously potent and found to be free of prostate cancer, the ED rates were 11.6% at the first month, and no ED was reported at the sixth month of evaluation. IIEF-5 and IIEF-EF domain scores displayed a statistically significant difference between baseline and first-month scores, but not between baseline and sixth-month scores, which returned to baseline values. CONCLUSIONS: Although saturation biopsy of the prostate is a safe procedure on the basis of erectile function, the minimal risk of temporary postbiopsy ED should be discussed with previously potent patients.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the erectile function following transrectal ultrasound-guided saturation biopsies of the prostate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of the 150 patients included in the study, those with persistently elevated prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level underwent saturation biopsy. A median of 22-core (minimum: 20; maximum: 30) prostate saturation biopsies was taken. Patients were evaluated for erectile function prebiopsy with the 5-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) and the IIEF-Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) domain scoring. Concomitant systemic diseases and medications that would interfere with erectile function were recorded. Eighty-eight patients reported to be prostate cancer-free underwent further evaluation with the IIEF-5 questionnaire at 1 and 6 mo postbiopsy. Severity of erectile dysfunction (ED) was classified into four categories. RESULTS: The patients' ages, serum PSA levels, prostate volumes, and number of cores showed no significant correlation with changes in ED scores after the prostate saturation biopsies. According to the IIEF-5, for patients who were previously potent and found to be free of prostate cancer, the ED rates were 11.6% at the first month, and no ED was reported at the sixth month of evaluation. IIEF-5 and IIEF-EF domain scores displayed a statistically significant difference between baseline and first-month scores, but not between baseline and sixth-month scores, which returned to baseline values. CONCLUSIONS: Although saturation biopsy of the prostate is a safe procedure on the basis of erectile function, the minimal risk of temporary postbiopsy ED should be discussed with previously potent patients.