Serkan Deveci1,2, Geoffrey T Gotto3, Byron Alex3, Keith O'Brien3, John P Mulhall3. 1. Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. drdevecitr@yahoo.com, serkandeveci06@yahoo.com. 2. Department of Urology, Medical School of Acibadem University, Istanbul, Turkey. drdevecitr@yahoo.com, serkandeveci06@yahoo.com. 3. Department of Urology, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the understanding of patients, who had previously undergone radical prostatectomy (RP), about their postoperative sexual function, as clinical experience suggests that some RP patients have unrealistic expectations about their long-term sexual function. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients presenting within 3 months of their open RP or robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) were questioned about the sexual function information that they had received preoperatively. Patients were questioned about erectile function (EF), postoperative ejaculatory status, orgasm, and postoperative penile morphology changes. Statistical analyses were performed to assess for differences between patients who underwent open RP vs RALP. RESULTS: In all, 336 consecutive patients (from nine surgeons) with a mean (SD) age of 64 (11) years had the survey instrument administered (216 underwent open RP and 120 underwent RALP). There were no significant differences in patient age or comorbidity profiles between the two groups. Only 38% of men had an accurate recollection of their nerve-sparing status. The mean (SD) elapsed time after RP at the time of postoperative assessment was 3 (2) months. RALP patients expected a shorter EF recovery time (6 vs 12 months, P = 0.02), a higher likelihood of recovery back to baseline EF (75% vs 50%, P = 0.01), and a lower potential need for intracavernosal injection therapy (4% vs 20%, P = 0.01). Almost half of all patients were unaware that they were rendered anejaculatory by their surgery. None of the RALP patients and only 10% of open RP patients recalled being informed of the potential for penile length loss (P < 0.01) and none were aware of the association between RP and Peyronie's disease. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have undergone RP have largely unrealistic expectations about their postoperative sexual function.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the understanding of patients, who had previously undergone radical prostatectomy (RP), about their postoperative sexual function, as clinical experience suggests that some RP patients have unrealistic expectations about their long-term sexual function. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients presenting within 3 months of their open RP or robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) were questioned about the sexual function information that they had received preoperatively. Patients were questioned about erectile function (EF), postoperative ejaculatory status, orgasm, and postoperative penile morphology changes. Statistical analyses were performed to assess for differences between patients who underwent open RP vs RALP. RESULTS: In all, 336 consecutive patients (from nine surgeons) with a mean (SD) age of 64 (11) years had the survey instrument administered (216 underwent open RP and 120 underwent RALP). There were no significant differences in patient age or comorbidity profiles between the two groups. Only 38% of men had an accurate recollection of their nerve-sparing status. The mean (SD) elapsed time after RP at the time of postoperative assessment was 3 (2) months. RALP patients expected a shorter EF recovery time (6 vs 12 months, P = 0.02), a higher likelihood of recovery back to baseline EF (75% vs 50%, P = 0.01), and a lower potential need for intracavernosal injection therapy (4% vs 20%, P = 0.01). Almost half of all patients were unaware that they were rendered anejaculatory by their surgery. None of the RALP patients and only 10% of open RP patients recalled being informed of the potential for penile length loss (P < 0.01) and none were aware of the association between RP and Peyronie's disease. CONCLUSIONS:Patients who have undergone RP have largely unrealistic expectations about their postoperative sexual function.
Authors: Raanan Tal; Matthias Heck; Patrick Teloken; Timothy Siegrist; Christian J Nelson; John P Mulhall Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: William T Lowrance; James A Eastham; Caroline Savage; A C Maschino; Vincent P Laudone; Christopher B Dechet; Robert A Stephenson; Peter T Scardino; Jaspreet S Sandhu Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-04-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Florian R Schroeck; Tracey L Krupski; Leon Sun; David M Albala; Marva M Price; Thomas J Polascik; Cary N Robertson; Alok K Tewari; Judd W Moul Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2008-06-23 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jim C Hu; Xiangmei Gu; Stuart R Lipsitz; Michael J Barry; Anthony V D'Amico; Aaron C Weinberg; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-10-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Emmanuel Chartier-Kastler; Edouard Amar; Daniel Chevallier; Olivier Montaigne; Christian Coulange; Jean-Michel Joubert; François Giuliano Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2008-01-11 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Alberto Briganti; Fabio Fabbri; Andrea Salonia; Andrea Gallina; Felix K-H Chun; Federico Dehò; Giuseppe Zanni; Nazareno Suardi; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Patrizio Rigatti; Francesco Montorsi Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2007-03-26 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Peter A Elliott; George A Abdelsayed; Patrick S Kilday; Brian J Kim; Jeff M Slezak; Gary W Chien Journal: World J Urol Date: 2017-10-30 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Shadab Khan; Aditya Mahara; Elias S Hyams; Alan R Schned; Ryan J Halter Journal: IEEE Trans Med Imaging Date: 2016-06-09 Impact factor: 10.048
Authors: Alexander B Nolsøe; Christian Fuglesang S Jensen; Peter B Østergren; Mikkel Fode Journal: Int J Impot Res Date: 2020-12-14 Impact factor: 2.896
Authors: Paolo Capogrosso; Eugenio Ventimiglia; Walter Cazzaniga; Francesco Montorsi; Andrea Salonia Journal: World J Mens Health Date: 2017-04 Impact factor: 5.400