INTRODUCTION: Erectile function recovery (EFR) rates after radical prostatectomy (RP) vary greatly based on a number of factors, such as erectile dysfunction (ED) definition, data acquisition means, time-point postsurgery, and population studied. AIM: To conduct a meta-analysis of carefully selected reports from the available literature to define the EFR rate post-RP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: EFR rate after RP. METHODS: An EMBASE and MEDLINE search was conducted for the time range 1985-2007. Articles were assessed blindly by strict inclusion criteria: report of EFR data post-RP, study population >or=50 patients, >or=1 year follow-up, nerve-sparing status declared, no presurgery ED, and no other prostate cancer therapy. Meta-analysis was conducted to determine the EFR rate and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 212 relevant studies were identified; only 22 (10%) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (9,965 RPs, EFR data: 4,983 subjects). Mean study population size: 226.5, standard deviation = 384.1 (range: 17-1,834). Overall EFR rate was 58%. Single center series publications (k = 19) reported a higher EFR rate compared with multicenter series publications (k = 3): 60% vs. 33%, RR = 1.82, P = 0.001. Studies reporting >or=18-month follow-up (k = 10) reported higher EFR rate vs. studies with <18-month follow-up (k = 12), 60% vs. 56%, RR = 1.07, P = 0.02. Open RP (k = 16) and laparoscopic RP (k = 4) had similar EFR (57% vs. 58%), while robot-assisted RP resulted in a higher EFR rate (k = 2), 73% compared with these other approaches, P = 0.001. Patients <60 years old had a higher EFR rate vs. patients >or=60 years, 77% vs. 61%, RR = 1.26, P = 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that most of the published literature does not meet strict criteria for reporting post-RP EFR. Single and multiple surgeon series have comparable EFR rates, but single center studies have a higher EFR. Younger men have higher EFR and no significant difference in EFR between ORP and LRP is evident.
INTRODUCTION: Erectile function recovery (EFR) rates after radical prostatectomy (RP) vary greatly based on a number of factors, such as erectile dysfunction (ED) definition, data acquisition means, time-point postsurgery, and population studied. AIM: To conduct a meta-analysis of carefully selected reports from the available literature to define the EFR rate post-RP. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: EFR rate after RP. METHODS: An EMBASE and MEDLINE search was conducted for the time range 1985-2007. Articles were assessed blindly by strict inclusion criteria: report of EFR data post-RP, study population >or=50 patients, >or=1 year follow-up, nerve-sparing status declared, no presurgery ED, and no other prostate cancer therapy. Meta-analysis was conducted to determine the EFR rate and relative risks (RR) for dichotomous subgroups. RESULTS: A total of 212 relevant studies were identified; only 22 (10%) met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (9,965 RPs, EFR data: 4,983 subjects). Mean study population size: 226.5, standard deviation = 384.1 (range: 17-1,834). Overall EFR rate was 58%. Single center series publications (k = 19) reported a higher EFR rate compared with multicenter series publications (k = 3): 60% vs. 33%, RR = 1.82, P = 0.001. Studies reporting >or=18-month follow-up (k = 10) reported higher EFR rate vs. studies with <18-month follow-up (k = 12), 60% vs. 56%, RR = 1.07, P = 0.02. Open RP (k = 16) and laparoscopic RP (k = 4) had similar EFR (57% vs. 58%), while robot-assisted RP resulted in a higher EFR rate (k = 2), 73% compared with these other approaches, P = 0.001. Patients <60 years old had a higher EFR rate vs. patients >or=60 years, 77% vs. 61%, RR = 1.26, P = 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that most of the published literature does not meet strict criteria for reporting post-RP EFR. Single and multiple surgeon series have comparable EFR rates, but single center studies have a higher EFR. Younger men have higher EFR and no significant difference in EFR between ORP and LRP is evident.
Authors: Shilajit D Kundu; Kimberly A Roehl; Scott E Eggener; Jo Ann V Antenor; Misop Han; William J Catalona Journal: J Urol Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Richard M Hoffman; William C Hunt; Frank D Gilliland; Robert A Stephenson; Arnold L Potosky Journal: Cancer Date: 2003-04-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Georgios Hatzichristodoulou; Stefan Wagenpfeil; Gregor Weirich; Michael Autenrieth; Tobias Maurer; Mark Thalgott; Thomas Horn; Matthias Heck; Kathleen Herkommer; Jürgen E Gschwend; Hubert Kübler Journal: World J Urol Date: 2015-06-23 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: T-H Kim; Y-S Ha; S H Choi; E S Yoo; B W Kim; S-J Yun; W-J Kim; Y S Kwon; T G Kwon Journal: Int J Impot Res Date: 2015-10-29 Impact factor: 2.896
Authors: Dongyi Peng; Amanda B Reed-Maldonado; Feng Zhou; Yan Tan; Huixing Yuan; Lia Banie; Guifang Wang; Yuxin Tang; Leye He; Guiting Lin; Tom F Lue Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2020-07-12 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Anne Holck Storås; Martin G Sanda; Montse Ferrer; Jon Håvard Loge; Alv A Dahl; Eivind A S Steinsvik; Ferran Guedea; Milada Cvancarova; Sophie D Fosså Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2014-01-03 Impact factor: 2.872