PURPOSE: We compared semen quality and patient preference between penile vibratory stimulation and electroejaculation in spinal cord injured men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We treated 11 spinal cord injured men with penile vibratory stimulation and electroejaculation in random order. End points examined were semen analysis, sperm functional assessment, and patient pain scores (1 to 10) and preferred procedure. Differences between the procedures were determined with the paired Student t test. RESULTS: There was no difference in antegrade sperm count but penile vibratory stimulation specimens had greater motility (26.0 versus 10.7%), viability (25.2 versus 9.7%) and motile sperm count (185.0 x 10(6) versus 97.0 x 10(6)). The retrograde sperm count was greater (but not significant) in electroejaculation patients. The total (antegrade plus retrograde) and motile sperm counts were not different. There was no difference in immunobead test (all negative), cervical mucus penetration or sperm penetration assay, although the percent hamster egg penetration approached significance (53.7% for penile vibratory stimulation versus 22.1% for electroejaculation, p = 0.06). There was no difference in the peak blood pressures and no complications were noted. Pain scores were significantly greater for electroejaculation compared to penile vibratory stimulation (5.2 versus 1.7, respectively). All patients preferred penile vibratory stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: There was a slight advantage in sperm quality and a high patient preference in favor of penile vibratory stimulation. Penile vibratory stimulation should be attempted first to induce ejaculation in spinal cord injured men, with electroejaculation reserved for failures.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We compared semen quality and patient preference between penile vibratory stimulation and electroejaculation in spinal cord injured men. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We treated 11 spinal cord injured men with penile vibratory stimulation and electroejaculation in random order. End points examined were semen analysis, sperm functional assessment, and patientpain scores (1 to 10) and preferred procedure. Differences between the procedures were determined with the paired Student t test. RESULTS: There was no difference in antegrade sperm count but penile vibratory stimulation specimens had greater motility (26.0 versus 10.7%), viability (25.2 versus 9.7%) and motile sperm count (185.0 x 10(6) versus 97.0 x 10(6)). The retrograde sperm count was greater (but not significant) in electroejaculation patients. The total (antegrade plus retrograde) and motile sperm counts were not different. There was no difference in immunobead test (all negative), cervical mucus penetration or sperm penetration assay, although the percent hamster egg penetration approached significance (53.7% for penile vibratory stimulation versus 22.1% for electroejaculation, p = 0.06). There was no difference in the peak blood pressures and no complications were noted. Pain scores were significantly greater for electroejaculation compared to penile vibratory stimulation (5.2 versus 1.7, respectively). All patients preferred penile vibratory stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: There was a slight advantage in sperm quality and a high patient preference in favor of penile vibratory stimulation. Penile vibratory stimulation should be attempted first to induce ejaculation in spinal cord injured men, with electroejaculation reserved for failures.
Authors: A Sánchez-Ramos; E Vargas-Baquero; F J Martin-de Francisco; J A Godino-Durán; I Rodriguez-Carrión; M Ortega-Ortega; L Mordillo-Mateos; F Coperchini; M Rotondi; A Oliviero; M Mas Journal: Spinal Cord Date: 2017-01-24 Impact factor: 2.772
Authors: Mikkel Fode; Sheila Krogh-Jespersen; Nancy L Brackett; Dana A Ohl; Charles M Lynne; Jens Sønksen Journal: Asian J Androl Date: 2011-12-05 Impact factor: 3.285
Authors: Ryan D Fortune; Raymond J Grill; Christine Beeton; Mark Tanner; Redwan Huq; David S Loose Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2016-12-02 Impact factor: 5.269