Chunhui Liu1, David S Lopez2, Ming Chen3, Run Wang4. 1. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA; Department of Urology, Affiliated Zhongda Hospital of Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China. 2. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA; Division of Epidemiology, Human Genetics and Environmental Sciences, University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Department of Urology, Affiliated Zhongda Hospital of Southeast University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China. 4. Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA; Department of Urology, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: run.wang@uth.tmc.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Penile rehabilitation, defined as the use of any drug or device at or after radical prostatectomy to maximize erectile function recovery, is commonly used for post-prostatectomy erectile dysfunction; however, conflicting results based on each study make it difficult to give a recommendation for clinical practice. AIM: To clarify the effect of oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5is), vacuum erection devices, intracorporeal injection therapy, and the combination of these treatments on penile rehabilitation. METHODS: A comprehensive publication search was done through the PubMed and Embase databases up to February 8, 2017. The reference lists of the retrieved studies also were investigated. Data were analyzed using STATA 12.0. A fixed- or random-effects model was used to calculate the overall combined odds ratio (OR) or standard mean differences (SMDs). Publication bias was assessed using the Begg and Egger tests. OUTCOMES: Change in sexual function before and after treatment. RESULTS: After screening, 11 randomized controlled trials and 5 case-control studies were included. The overall meta-analysis showed that penile rehabilitation with PDE5is, vacuum erection devices, and intracorporeal injection significantly increased the number of patients with erectile function improvement (OR = 2.800, 95% CI = 1.932-4.059, P = .000) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score (SMD = 5.896, 95% CI = 4.032-7.760, P = .000). In subgroup analysis based on study design, randomized controlled trials and case-control studies showed that penile rehabilitation increased the number of patients with erectile function improvement (randomized controlled trials: OR = 2.154, 95% CI = 1.600-2.895, P = .000; case-control studies: OR = 2.800, 95% CI = 1.932-4.059, P = .000). Subgroup analysis for PDE5i treatment also only demonstrated an increased patient response rate (OR = 2.161, 95% CI = 1.675-2.788, P = .000) and IIEF scores (SMD = 0.922, 95% CI = 0.545-1.300, P = .000). However, after PDE5i washout, there was no improvement of spontaneous erectile function (OR = 1.027, 95% CI = 0.713-1.478, P = .610). CLINICAL TRANSLATION: This study provides information about the efficacy of penile rehabilitation that can help clinicians decide treatment strategies. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This meta-analysis has higher statistical power than each study. Preoperative patient characteristics, various treatment methods, and different follow-up times might bring bias to pooled effects. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis confirmed that administration of PDE5is, vacuum erection devices, and intracorporeal injection after radical prostatectomy can increase erection function during treatments. However, current evidence does not support that penile rehabilitation with PDE5is can improve recovery of spontaneous erectile function. Further studies with adequate follow-up and larger samples should be conducted to generate a comprehensive conclusion. Liu C, Lopez DS, Chen M, Wang R. Penile Rehabilitation Therapy Following Radical Prostatectomy: A Meta-Analysis. J Sex Med 2017;14:1496-1503.
BACKGROUND: Penile rehabilitation, defined as the use of any drug or device at or after radical prostatectomy to maximize erectile function recovery, is commonly used for post-prostatectomy erectile dysfunction; however, conflicting results based on each study make it difficult to give a recommendation for clinical practice. AIM: To clarify the effect of oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5is), vacuum erection devices, intracorporeal injection therapy, and the combination of these treatments on penile rehabilitation. METHODS: A comprehensive publication search was done through the PubMed and Embase databases up to February 8, 2017. The reference lists of the retrieved studies also were investigated. Data were analyzed using STATA 12.0. A fixed- or random-effects model was used to calculate the overall combined odds ratio (OR) or standard mean differences (SMDs). Publication bias was assessed using the Begg and Egger tests. OUTCOMES: Change in sexual function before and after treatment. RESULTS: After screening, 11 randomized controlled trials and 5 case-control studies were included. The overall meta-analysis showed that penile rehabilitation with PDE5is, vacuum erection devices, and intracorporeal injection significantly increased the number of patients with erectile function improvement (OR = 2.800, 95% CI = 1.932-4.059, P = .000) and International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score (SMD = 5.896, 95% CI = 4.032-7.760, P = .000). In subgroup analysis based on study design, randomized controlled trials and case-control studies showed that penile rehabilitation increased the number of patients with erectile function improvement (randomized controlled trials: OR = 2.154, 95% CI = 1.600-2.895, P = .000; case-control studies: OR = 2.800, 95% CI = 1.932-4.059, P = .000). Subgroup analysis for PDE5i treatment also only demonstrated an increased patient response rate (OR = 2.161, 95% CI = 1.675-2.788, P = .000) and IIEF scores (SMD = 0.922, 95% CI = 0.545-1.300, P = .000). However, after PDE5i washout, there was no improvement of spontaneous erectile function (OR = 1.027, 95% CI = 0.713-1.478, P = .610). CLINICAL TRANSLATION: This study provides information about the efficacy of penile rehabilitation that can help clinicians decide treatment strategies. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This meta-analysis has higher statistical power than each study. Preoperative patient characteristics, various treatment methods, and different follow-up times might bring bias to pooled effects. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis confirmed that administration of PDE5is, vacuum erection devices, and intracorporeal injection after radical prostatectomy can increase erection function during treatments. However, current evidence does not support that penile rehabilitation with PDE5is can improve recovery of spontaneous erectile function. Further studies with adequate follow-up and larger samples should be conducted to generate a comprehensive conclusion. Liu C, Lopez DS, Chen M, Wang R. Penile Rehabilitation Therapy Following Radical Prostatectomy: A Meta-Analysis. J Sex Med 2017;14:1496-1503.
Authors: Paolo Capogrosso; Emily A Vertosick; Nicole E Benfante; James A Eastham; Peter J Scardino; Andrew J Vickers; John P Mulhall Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Vincenzo Pagliarulo; Stefano Alba; Maria Filomena Gallone; Marcello Zingarelli; Alfonso Lorusso; Paolo Minafra; Giuseppe Maria Ludovico; Savino Di Stasi; Pasquale Ditonno Journal: World J Urol Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Marc J Rogers; Marigdalia K Ramirez-Fort; James A Kashanian; Seth A Broster; Jaime Matta; Sean S Mahase; Digna V Fort; M Junaid Niaz; Shearwood McClelland; Neil H Bander; Migdalia Fort; Christopher S Lange; Peter Schlegel; John P Mulhall Journal: Rep Pract Oncol Radiother Date: 2020-05-06
Authors: Sarah Martin; Daniel A Harrington; Samuel Ohlander; Samuel I Stupp; Kevin T McVary; Carol A Podlasek Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2021-03-09 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Randi V Karlsen; Pernille E Bidstrup; Annamaria Giraldi; Helle Hvarness; Per Bagi; Susanne Vahr Lauridsen; Vanna Albieri; Marie Frederiksen; Eva Krause; Ulla Due; Christoffer Johansen Journal: Sex Med Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 2.491