OBJECTIVES: Outcome measures following radical prostatectomy are not standardized. Though excellent potency rates are widely reported, few studies address a return to baseline function. We analyze validated sexual health-related quality-of-life outcomes by a strict definition, a return to baseline function, and compare them to less stringent, yet more frequently referenced, categorical definitions of potency. METHODS: Patients undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy from April 2001 to September 2007 completed the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire at baseline and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. We defined a return to baseline as a recovery to greater than one-half standard deviation of the studied population below the patient's own baseline (clinically detectable threshold). We compared these outcomes to a categorical definition of potency involving intercourse frequency. To limit confounders, we performed subset analyses of preoperatively potent men who received bilateral nerve preservation. Factors predictive of return to baseline function were assessed in multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 568 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age and follow-up were 57.2 years and 16.9 months, respectively. Using the categorical definition, 85% of preoperatively potent men with bilateral nerve preservation were "potent" at 24 months; however, only 27% returned to their baseline sexual function. In multivariable analyses baseline function, number of nerves spared, and age were independent predictors of a return to baseline function. CONCLUSION: While most preoperatively potent men who receive bilateral nerve preservation engage in intercourse postoperatively, few return to their baseline sexual function. We believe that these data provide context for the expectations of patients who elect extirpative therapy.
OBJECTIVES: Outcome measures following radical prostatectomy are not standardized. Though excellent potency rates are widely reported, few studies address a return to baseline function. We analyze validated sexual health-related quality-of-life outcomes by a strict definition, a return to baseline function, and compare them to less stringent, yet more frequently referenced, categorical definitions of potency. METHODS:Patients undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy from April 2001 to September 2007 completed the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire at baseline and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. We defined a return to baseline as a recovery to greater than one-half standard deviation of the studied population below the patient's own baseline (clinically detectable threshold). We compared these outcomes to a categorical definition of potency involving intercourse frequency. To limit confounders, we performed subset analyses of preoperatively potent men who received bilateral nerve preservation. Factors predictive of return to baseline function were assessed in multivariable analysis. RESULTS: A total of 568 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age and follow-up were 57.2 years and 16.9 months, respectively. Using the categorical definition, 85% of preoperatively potent men with bilateral nerve preservation were "potent" at 24 months; however, only 27% returned to their baseline sexual function. In multivariable analyses baseline function, number of nerves spared, and age were independent predictors of a return to baseline function. CONCLUSION: While most preoperatively potent men who receive bilateral nerve preservation engage in intercourse postoperatively, few return to their baseline sexual function. We believe that these data provide context for the expectations of patients who elect extirpative therapy.
Authors: Adam W Levinson; Nicholas T Ward; Martin G Sanda; Lynda Z Mettee; John T Wei; Li-Ming Su; Mark S Litwin; Christian P Pavlovich Journal: Urology Date: 2010-06-22 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Zvi Symon; Stephanie Daignault; Rachel Symon; Rodney L Dunn; Martin G Sanda; Howard M Sandler Journal: Urology Date: 2006-12-04 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Steven B Zeliadt; Scott D Ramsey; David F Penson; Ingrid J Hall; Donatus U Ekwueme; Leonard Stroud; Judith W Lee Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-05-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Kristine A Donovan; Brian D Gonzalez; Ashley M Nelson; Mayer N Fishman; Babu Zachariah; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2017-06-27 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Jane M Robertson; Gerard J Molloy; Prasad R Bollina; Daniel M Kelly; S Alan McNeill; Liz Forbat Journal: Trials Date: 2014-05-24 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Andrea Salonia; Giulia Castagna; Paolo Capogrosso; Fabio Castiglione; Alberto Briganti; Francesco Montorsi Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2015-08