BACKGROUND: The last decade has seen several advances in radical prostatectomy (RP) technique and post-RP care that are relevant to erectile function (EF) recovery. OBJECTIVE: We examined whether these practice changes have led to observed improvements in EF rates over time. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified 2364 patients treated with either open or minimally-invasive RP at a single academic center in 2008-2015. To mitigate confounding by the surgical learning curve, only patients treated by surgeons who performed at least 100 procedures were considered. INTERVENTION: EF before and after RP was assessed by the International Index of Erectile Function 6 (IIEF-6), with recovery defined as IIEF-6 ≥24. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We analyzed EF recovery rates of patients treated with bilateral nerve-sparing surgery and free from adjuvant/salvage treatment at the time of EF assessment. Local polynomial regression analyses explored changes in the outcomes over time. Linear and logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the influence of year of surgery on baseline variables and EF recovery. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We observed a significant decrease over time of the EF recovery rates at both 12 and 24mo post-RP (all p=0.01). However, patient's age at surgery increased over time (mean increase of 0.5 per year; p<0.01), with a resultant increase in risk of comorbidity (odds ratio [OR]=1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.15; p=0.008) and thus decrease in baseline IIEF-6 score (0.35 points per year; p=0.0003). After accounting for baseline and pathological characteristics, urinary function, and type of surgery in a multivariable analysis, year of surgery was not associated with EF recovery (12mo: OR=0.97, 95% CI: 0.91-1.03, p=0.4; 24mo: OR=0.97, 95% CI: 0.91-1.03, p=0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Findings from a high-volume center suggest that, despite the advancements in surgical and postoperative care, EF outcomes after RP have not improved over the last decade. Additional strategies are required to improve EF recovery after RP. PATIENT SUMMARY: The probability of regaining potency after surgery for prostate cancer did not improve over the last decade; more efforts are needed to improve patient's care after radical prostatectomy.
BACKGROUND: The last decade has seen several advances in radical prostatectomy (RP) technique and post-RP care that are relevant to erectile function (EF) recovery. OBJECTIVE: We examined whether these practice changes have led to observed improvements in EF rates over time. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We identified 2364 patients treated with either open or minimally-invasive RP at a single academic center in 2008-2015. To mitigate confounding by the surgical learning curve, only patients treated by surgeons who performed at least 100 procedures were considered. INTERVENTION: EF before and after RP was assessed by the International Index of Erectile Function 6 (IIEF-6), with recovery defined as IIEF-6 ≥24. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: We analyzed EF recovery rates of patients treated with bilateral nerve-sparing surgery and free from adjuvant/salvage treatment at the time of EF assessment. Local polynomial regression analyses explored changes in the outcomes over time. Linear and logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the influence of year of surgery on baseline variables and EF recovery. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We observed a significant decrease over time of the EF recovery rates at both 12 and 24mo post-RP (all p=0.01). However, patient's age at surgery increased over time (mean increase of 0.5 per year; p<0.01), with a resultant increase in risk of comorbidity (odds ratio [OR]=1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.02-1.15; p=0.008) and thus decrease in baseline IIEF-6 score (0.35 points per year; p=0.0003). After accounting for baseline and pathological characteristics, urinary function, and type of surgery in a multivariable analysis, year of surgery was not associated with EF recovery (12mo: OR=0.97, 95% CI: 0.91-1.03, p=0.4; 24mo: OR=0.97, 95% CI: 0.91-1.03, p=0.3). CONCLUSIONS: Findings from a high-volume center suggest that, despite the advancements in surgical and postoperative care, EF outcomes after RP have not improved over the last decade. Additional strategies are required to improve EF recovery after RP. PATIENT SUMMARY: The probability of regaining potency after surgery for prostate cancer did not improve over the last decade; more efforts are needed to improve patient's care after radical prostatectomy.
Authors: Vincenzo Ficarra; Giacomo Novara; Thomas E Ahlering; Anthony Costello; James A Eastham; Markus Graefen; Giorgio Guazzoni; Mani Menon; Alexandre Mottrie; Vipul R Patel; Henk Van der Poel; Raymond C Rosen; Ashutosh K Tewari; Timothy G Wilson; Filiberto Zattoni; Francesco Montorsi Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2012-06-01 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Andrea Salonia; Ganesh Adaikan; Jacques Buvat; Serge Carrier; Amr El-Meliegy; Kostas Hatzimouratidis; Andrew McCullough; Abraham Morgentaler; Luiz Otavio Torres; Mohit Khera Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Timothy J Wilt; Michael K Brawer; Karen M Jones; Michael J Barry; William J Aronson; Steven Fox; Jeffrey R Gingrich; John T Wei; Patricia Gilhooly; B Mayer Grob; Imad Nsouli; Padmini Iyer; Ruben Cartagena; Glenn Snider; Claus Roehrborn; Roohollah Sharifi; William Blank; Parikshit Pandya; Gerald L Andriole; Daniel Culkin; Thomas Wheeler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-07-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Justin K Lee; Melissa Assel; Alan E Thong; Daniel D Sjoberg; John P Mulhall; Jaspreet Sandhu; Andrew J Vickers; Behfar Ehdaie Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Daniel A Barocas; JoAnn Alvarez; Matthew J Resnick; Tatsuki Koyama; Karen E Hoffman; Mark D Tyson; Ralph Conwill; Dan McCollum; Matthew R Cooperberg; Michael Goodman; Sheldon Greenfield; Ann S Hamilton; Mia Hashibe; Sherrie H Kaplan; Lisa E Paddock; Antoinette M Stroup; Xiao-Cheng Wu; David F Penson Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J L Donovan; F C Hamdy; J A Lane; D E Neal; M Mason; C Metcalfe; E Walsh; J M Blazeby; T J Peters; P Holding; S Bonnington; T Lennon; L Bradshaw; D Cooper; P Herbert; J Howson; A Jones; N Lyons; E Salter; P Thompson; S Tidball; J Blaikie; C Gray; P Bollina; J Catto; A Doble; A Doherty; D Gillatt; R Kockelbergh; H Kynaston; A Paul; P Powell; S Prescott; D J Rosario; E Rowe; M Davis; E L Turner; R M Martin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-09-14 Impact factor: 91.245
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: Valentin H Meissner; Sonja Dumler; Martina Kron; Stefan Schiele; Veronika E Goethe; Andreas Bannowsky; Jürgen E Gschwend; Kathleen Herkommer Journal: Transl Androl Urol Date: 2020-06
Authors: Catherine E Lovegrove; Vincenzo Ficarra; Francesco Montorsi; James N'Dow; Andrea Salonia; Suks Minhas Journal: Int J Impot Res Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 2.896
Authors: Spyridon P Basourakos; Keith Kowalczyk; Marcio Covas Moschovas; Vanessa Dudley; Andrew J Hung; Jonathan E Shoag; Vipul Patel; Jim C Hu Journal: J Endourol Date: 2021-11 Impact factor: 2.942