-
International Journal of Impotence... Aug 2022Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a major global health burden commonly observed in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Although renal transplantation improves the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a major global health burden commonly observed in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Although renal transplantation improves the problem in some patients, it persists in ≈20-50% of recipients. Studies regarding the effects of kidney transplantation on ED present contradictory findings. We performed a systematic review to summarise the effects of kidney transplantation on ED. A systematic literature search was performed across PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases in April 2020. We included all prospective studies that investigated the pre and posttransplant international index of erectile function (IIEF-5) scores in recipients with ED. Data search in PubMed and Google Scholar produced 1326 articles; eight were systematically reviewed with a total of 448 subjects. Meta-analysis of IIEF-5 scores showed significant improvements between pre and post transplantation. Our findings confirm that renal transplantation improves erectile function. Furthermore, transplantation also increases testosterone level. However, the evidence is limited because of the small number of studies. Further studies are required to investigate the effects of renal transplantation on erectile function.
Topics: Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Kidney Transplantation; Male; Penile Erection; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 34103695
DOI: 10.1038/s41443-021-00419-6 -
The Journal of Sexual Medicine Mar 2021Penile length measurement techniques vary widely in published studies leading to inaccurate and nonstandardized measurements.
BACKGROUND
Penile length measurement techniques vary widely in published studies leading to inaccurate and nonstandardized measurements.
AIM
To review the methodology used to report data in studies evaluating penile length and provide a detailed recommendation in conducting future high-quality research.
METHODS
The MEDLINE database was searched for randomized clinical trials and open-label prospective or retrospective studies.
OUTCOMES
The panel reviewed the modality of data reporting on these specific areas: patients' age and assessment, patient position, type of measurement instrument used, penile length technique description, examination conditions, and actual examiner.
RESULTS
Overall, 70 studies investigating penile length were selected; among these, 72.85% included at least 50 patients: 16 prospective studies, 5 randomized clinical trials, and 49 retrospective cross-sectional studies. Amongst all studies, 90% reported to measure penile length by health care practitioners in clinical settings. Penile length was assessed in all 70 studies, whereas penile girth was measured in 57.14% of patients. A semi-rigid ruler was the most commonly used measurement aid to assess penile length/girth in 62.86% of studies. Penile measurements were reportedly obtained: (i) stretched state, 60%; (ii) flaccid state only, 52.68%; and (iii) during erection, 27.43%. All studies investigating the penile length in an erect state were simultaneously assessing penile length in the flaccid state. About 90% of studies investigated penile length in adults, whereas 10% were conducted in adolescents.
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS
The use of shared methodology to assess penile length in both adults and adolescents allows more accurate and standardized measurements.
STRENGTH & LIMITATIONS
A systematic review of the published literature allowed proper data interpretation in order to provide accurate recommendations. Main limitations of the study relied on a relatively limited number of databases for the identification of potentially eligible studies.
CONCLUSION
The methodology used in studies measuring penile length should be precise and standardized in order to provide accurate data to both clinicians and researchers. Cakir OO, Pozzi E, Castiglione F, et al. Penile Length Measurement: Methodological Challenges and Recommendations, a Systematic Review. J Sex Med 2021;18:433-439.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Cross-Sectional Studies; Humans; Male; Penile Erection; Penis; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 33648901
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2020.11.012 -
Andrologia May 2021The meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of daily oral L-arginine and phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is) alone or combination in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Comparison of efficacy and safety of daily oral L-arginine and PDE5Is alone or combination in treating erectile dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
The meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy and safety of daily oral L-arginine and phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is) alone or combination in treating patients with erectile dysfunction (ED). We performed a search of randomised controlled trials in the following databases: PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. Four articles including 373 patients were studied. Erectile functions were significantly improved in three therapy groups compared with baseline. Patients who received the combination of L-arginine and PDE5Is showed significant improvement compared to those treated with L-arginine and PDE5Is alone, as assessed by sexual function index (p <0.00001 and p =0.005, respectively) and total testosterone (p <0.00001 and p =0.0007, respectively). Furthermore, patients who treated with PDE5Is alone exhibited the better efficacy than those treated with L-arginine alone in respects of sexual function index (p <0.00001) and total testosterone (p =0.0001). However, the combination of L-arginine and PDE5Is had no obvious difference relative to PDE5Is alone in terms of various adverse events (AEs). Conclusively, compared with monotherapy, the combination of L-arginine and PDE5Is showed a greater improvement of sexual function and total testosterone, and did not significantly increase the AEs. Besides, PDE5Is alone revealed a better effect than those treated with L-arginine alone for patients with ED.
Topics: Arginine; Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Male; Penile Erection; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33587304
DOI: 10.1111/and.14007 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020A variety of minimally invasive surgical approaches are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A variety of minimally invasive surgical approaches are available as an alternative to transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) for management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Prostatic arterial embolization (PAE) is a relatively new, minimally invasive treatment approach.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of PAE compared to other procedures for treatment of LUTS in men with BPH.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search using multiple databases (The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar), trials registries, other sources of grey literature, and conference proceedings with no restrictions on language of publication or publication status, up until 25 September 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials (RCTs), as well as non-randomized studies (NRS, limited to prospective cohort studies with concurrent comparison groups) enrolling men over the age of 40 with LUTS attributed to BPH undergoing PAE versus TURP or other surgical interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently classified studies for inclusion or exclusion and abstracted data from the included studies. We performed statistical analyses by using a random-effects model and interpreted them according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We used GRADE guidance to rate the certainty of evidence of RCTs and NRSs. MAIN RESULTS: We found data to inform two comparisons: PAE versus TURP (six RCTs and two NRSs), and PAE versus sham (one RCT). Mean age, IPSS, and prostate volume of participants were 66 years, 22.8, and 72.8 mL, respectively. This abstract focuses on the comparison of PAE versus TURP as the primary topic of interest. PAE versus TURP We included six RCTs and two NRSs with short-term (up to 12 months) follow-up and one RCT with long-term follow-up (13 to 24 months). Short-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, there may be little to no difference in urologic symptom score improvement (mean difference [MD] 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.40 to 3.50; 369 participants; 6 RCTs; I² = 75%; low-certainty evidence) measured by the International Prostatic Symptom Score (IPSS) on a scale from 0 to 35, with higher scores indicating worse symptoms. There may be little to no difference in quality of life (MD 0.16, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.68; 309 participants; 5 RCTs; I² = 56%; low-certainty evidence) as measured by the IPSS quality of life question on a scale from 0 to 6, with higher scores indicating worse quality of life between PAE and TURP, respectively. While we are very uncertain about the effects of PAE on major adverse events (risk ratio [RR] 0.71, 95% CI 0.16 to 3.10; 250 participants; 4 RCTs; I² = 26%; very low-certainty evidence), PAE may increase re-treatments (RR 3.64, 95% CI 1.02 to 12.98; 204 participants; 3 RCTs; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). Based on 18 re-treatments per 1000 men in the TURP group, this corresponds to 47 more (0 more to 214 more) per 1000 men undergoing PAE. We are very uncertain about the effects on erectile function (MD -0.03, 95% CI -6.35 to 6.29; 129 participants; 2 RCTs; I² = 78%; very low-certainty evidence) measured by the International Index of Erectile Function at 5 on a scale from 1 to 25, with higher scores indicating better function. NRS evidence when available yielded similar results. Based on evidence from NRS, PAE may reduce the occurrence of ejaculatory disorders (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.73; 260 participants; 1 NRS; low-certainty evidence). Longer-term follow-up: based on RCT evidence, we are very uncertain about the effects of PAE on urologic symptom scores (MD 0.30, 95% CI -3.17 to 3.77; 95 participants; very low-certainty evidence) compared to TURP. Quality of life may be similar (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.89; 95 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are also very uncertain about major adverse events (RR 1.96, 95% CI 0.63 to 6.13; 107 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not find evidence on erectile function and ejaculatory disorders. Based on evidence from NRS, PAE may increase re-treatment rates (RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.29; 305 participants; low-certainty evidence); based on 56 re-treatments per 1000 men in the TURP group. this corresponds to 143 more (25 more to 430 more) per 1000 men in the PAE group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to TURP up to 12 months (short-term follow-up), PAE may provide similar improvement in urologic symptom scores and quality of life. While we are very uncertain about major adverse events, PAE may increase re-treatment rates. We are uncertain about erectile function, but PAE may reduce ejaculatory disorders. Longer term (follow-up of 13 to 24 months), we are very uncertain as to how both procedures compare with regard to urologic symptom scores, but quality of life appears to be similar. We are very uncertain about major adverse events but PAE may increase re-treatments. We did not find longer term evidence on erectile function and ejaculatory disorders. Certainty of evidence for the main outcomes of this review was low or very low, signalling that our confidence in the reported effect size is limited or very limited, and that this topic should be better informed by future research.
Topics: Aged; Arteries; Ejaculation; Embolization, Therapeutic; Humans; Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms; Male; Penile Erection; Postoperative Complications; Prostate; Prostatic Hyperplasia; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Retreatment; Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological; Transurethral Resection of Prostate; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33368143
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012867.pub2 -
International Journal of Impotence... Jan 2022The aim of this study is to present a summary of current evidence concerning the various treatments in the management of penile rehabilitation after radical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this study is to present a summary of current evidence concerning the various treatments in the management of penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy (RP) and provide recommendations for future research. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from electronic databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, and Web of Science from inception through March 2020 with no limitation to language. Comparable data from each study were combined in a meta-analysis where possible, otherwise data were synthesized narratively. The data analysis was completed by Review Manager version 5.3. A total of 39 RCTs were included in this study. At present, phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5is) remain the first-line treatment for patients with erectile dysfunction (ED) after RP. Compared with the placebo group, patients in regular PDE5is group (mean difference (MD): 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.69-4.44; p < 0.0001) and on demand group (MD: 3.92; 95% CI: 2.95-4.88; p < 0.00001) had a significantly higher mean Erectile Function domain of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) scores within 3 months after RP. As for the proportion of IIEF-EF ≥ 22, patients in regular PDE5is group and on demand PDE5is group had significantly higher proportion than those in placebo group 6 months after RP, and the odds ratios were 1.87 (95% CI: 1.32-2.66; p = 0.0005) and 2.17 (95% CI: 1.20-3.93; p = 0.01), respectively. No significant difference was observed between regular PDE5is group and on demand group regardless of mean IIEF-EF score or the proportion of IIEF-EF ≥ 22. Intracorporeal injection therapy seemed to have similar efficacy to PDE5is. The International Index of Erectile Function-5 items (IIEF-5) scores were significantly higher in vacuum constriction devices group than control group at 6-9 months after RP (MD: 6.70, 95% CI: 2.30-11.10, p = 0.003) with great between-study heterogeneity (p = 0.06, I = 72%). The other therapeutics including low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy, statin therapy, psychotherapy interventions, and pelvic floor muscle training plus electrical stimulation showed certain improvement on erectile function. We found that the combination therapy showed certain advantages over monotherapy. Currently, PDE5is-based combination therapy remains the mainstream treatment for ED after RP. Intracorporeal injection therapy and vacuum therapy could be served as alternative treatments if PDE5is are ineffective and contraindicated.
Topics: Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Male; Penile Erection; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; Prostate; Prostatectomy
PubMed: 33099581
DOI: 10.1038/s41443-020-00364-w -
BMC Urology Oct 2020Controversy remains despite several studies have discussed the role of bariatric surgery in improving male's sexual function. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Controversy remains despite several studies have discussed the role of bariatric surgery in improving male's sexual function. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of bariatric surgery in promoting male's erectile function.
METHODS
PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CNKI and Clinical Trails.gov were searched from database inception to May 2019. The language of publication was limited in English. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) score and Brief Male Sexual Function Inventory (BSFI) score were set as the primary outcome.
RESULTS
Eleven studies with a total of 370 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. The results showed significant improvement in the IIEF score (erectile function: MD = 5.33, 95% CI 4.12-6.54; intercourse satisfaction: MD = 2.57, 95% CI 1.19-3.94; orgasmic function: MD = 0.50, 95%CI 0.60-0.94; overall satisfaction: MD = 1.67, 95% CI 0.78-2.56; sexual desire: MD = 1.27, 95% CI 0.61-1.93; total erectile function: MD = 7.21, 95% CI 4.33-10.10) and the BSFI score (erection: MD =2.53, 95% CI 2.39-2.67; ejaculation: MD = 1.40, 95% CI 1.28-1.51; desire: MD =1.40, 95% CI 1.32-1.49; problem assessment: MD = 2.20, 95% CI 2.06-2.34; sexual satisfaction: MD = 0.70, 95% CI 0.60-0.76) in obese individuals after bariatric surgery.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that bariatric surgery could be effective in promoting males's sexual function for obese individuals.
Topics: Bariatric Surgery; Erectile Dysfunction; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Male; Obesity, Morbid; Penile Erection; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33008406
DOI: 10.1186/s12894-020-00707-1 -
Progres En Urologie : Journal de... Dec 2020Clinical trials of cell therapy for erectile dysfunction (ED) and Peyronie's disease (PD) were recently conducted after preclinical studies.
INTRODUCTION
Clinical trials of cell therapy for erectile dysfunction (ED) and Peyronie's disease (PD) were recently conducted after preclinical studies.
AIMS
The aims of this study are to give an update on biotherapy for ED and PD and to describe the regulatory framework for these therapies.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A literature review was performed through PubMed and Clinical.trials.gov addressing cell therapy for ED and PD and using following keywords "erectile dysfunction", "Peyronie's disease", "stem cell", and "platelet-rich plasma".
RESULTS
Preclinical studies in rodent models have shown the potential benefit of cell therapy for ED after radical prostatectomy or caused by metabolic diseases, and PD. The tissues used to obtain the therapeutic product were bone marrow, adipose tissue and blood (PRP, platelet-rich plasma). Mechanism of action was shown to be temporary and mainly paracrine. Four clinical trials were published concerning ED after radical prostatectomy and in diabetic patients and one for PD. Eleven clinical trials including three randomized trials are currently going on. Preclinical and preliminary clinical results suggested the possibility to improve spontaneous erectile function and response to pharmaceutical treatment in initially non-responder patients. This effect is mediated by an improvement of penile vascularization. A reduction of penile curvature without side effect was noted after injections into the plaque of PD patients. Most of these therapeutic strategies using autologous cells were considered as "Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products" with strict regulatory frameworks imposing heavy constraints, in particular in case of "substantial" modification of the cells. The regulatory framework remains unclear and more permissive for PRP and cell therapy processes with extemporaneous preparation/injection and no "substantial" modifications.
CONCLUSIONS
First results on cell therapy for ED and PD are promising. The regulatory framework can significantly change according to cell preparations and origins leading to various constraints. This regulatory framework is crucial to consider for the choice of the procedure.
Topics: Biological Therapy; Clinical Trials as Topic; Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Male; Penile Induration; Stem Cell Transplantation
PubMed: 32826194
DOI: 10.1016/j.purol.2020.05.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2020Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is widely used to surgically treat clinically localized prostate cancer. It is typically performed using an approach... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is widely used to surgically treat clinically localized prostate cancer. It is typically performed using an approach (standard RALP) that mimics open retropubic prostatectomy by dissecting the so-called space of Retzius anterior to the bladder. An alternative, Retzius-sparing (or posterior approach) RALP (RS-RALP) has been described, which is reported to have better continence outcomes but may be associated with a higher risk of incomplete resection and positive surgical margins (PSM).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of RS-RALP compared to standard RALP for the treatment of clinically localized prostate cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search of the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, trials registries, other sources of the grey literature, and conference proceedings, up to June 2020. We applied no restrictions on publication language or status.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included trials where participants were randomized to RS-RALP or standard RALP for clinically localized prostate cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently classified and abstracted data from the included studies. Primary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery within one week after catheter removal, at three months after surgery, and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were: urinary continence recovery six and 12 months after surgery, potency recovery 12 months after surgery, positive surgical margins (PSM), biochemical recurrence-free survival (BCRFS), and urinary and sexual function quality of life. We performed statistical analyses using a random-effects model. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
Our search identified six records of five unique randomized controlled trials, of which two were published studies, one was in press, and two were abstract proceedings. There were 571 randomized participants, of whom 502 completed the trials. Mean age of participants was 64.6 years and mean prostate-specific antigen was 6.9 ng/mL. About 54.2% of participants had cT1c disease, 38.6% had cT2a-b disease, and 7.1 % had cT2c disease. Primary outcomes RS-RALP probably improves continence within one week after catheter removal (risk ratio (RR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.41 to 2.14; I = 0%; studies = 4; participants = 410; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming 335 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 248 more men per 1000 (137 more to 382 more) reporting continence recovery. RS-RALP may increase continence at three months after surgery compared to standard RALP (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.68; I = 86%; studies = 5; participants = 526; low-certainty evidence). Assuming 750 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 224 more men per 1000 (41 more to 462 more) reporting continence recovery. We are very uncertain about the effects of RS-RALP on serious adverse events compared to standard RALP (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.47 to 4.17; studies = 2; participants = 230; very low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes There is probably little to no difference in continence recovery at 12 months after surgery (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04; I = 0%; studies = 2; participants = 222; moderate-certainty evidence). Assuming 982 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP are continent at this time point, this corresponds to 10 more men per 1000 (29 fewer to 39 more) reporting continence recovery. We are very uncertain about the effect of RS-RALP on potency recovery 12 months after surgery (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.80; studies = 1; participants = 55; very low-certainty evidence). RS-RALP may increase PSMs (RR 1.95, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.20; I = 0%; studies = 3; participants = 308; low-certainty evidence) indicating a higher risk for prostate cancer recurrence. Assuming 129 per 1000 men undergoing standard RALP have positive margins, this corresponds to 123 more men per 1000 (25 more to 284 more) with PSMs. We are very uncertain about the effect of RS-RALP on BCRFS compared to standard RALP (hazard ratio (HR) 0.45, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.60; I = 32%; studies = 2; participants = 218; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Findings of this review indicate that RS-RALP may result in better continence outcomes than standard RALP up to six months after surgery. Continence outcomes at 12 months may be similar. Downsides of RS-RALP may be higher positive margin rates. We are very uncertain about the effect on BCRFS and potency outcomes. Longer-term oncologic and functional outcomes are lacking, and no preplanned subgroup analyses could be performed to explore the observed heterogeneity. Surgeons should discuss these trade-offs and the limitations of the evidence with their patients when considering this approach.
Topics: Aged; Humans; Kallikreins; Laparoscopy; Male; Margins of Excision; Middle Aged; Organ Sparing Treatments; Penile Erection; Postoperative Complications; Prostate-Specific Antigen; Prostatectomy; Prostatic Neoplasms; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Robotic Surgical Procedures; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Urinary Incontinence
PubMed: 32813279
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013641.pub2 -
Andrology Nov 2020For a large proportion of patients with spinal cord injury, sexuality and reproduction are important issues. However, sparse data exist regarding available treatment...
BACKGROUND
For a large proportion of patients with spinal cord injury, sexuality and reproduction are important issues. However, sparse data exist regarding available treatment options for this patient population.
OBJECTIVES
We sought to review performance and safety rates of all currently available treatment options for erectile dysfunction in spinal cord injury men.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature review without time restrictions was performed using PubMed/EMBASE database for English-, Italian-, German-, and Spanish-language articles. Articles' selection was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Relevant papers on erectile dysfunction in spinal cord injury patients were included in the final analyses.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Overall, 47 studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. Of these, most evidence dealt with phosphodiesterase 5-inhibitors and intracavernous drug injection. Both treatment options are associated with high levels of performance and with patients/partners' satisfaction; side effects are acceptable. Overall, penile prostheses and vacuum erection devices are in general less approved by spinal cord injury patients and are correlated with increased rates of complications in comparison with phosphodiesterase 5-inhibitors and intracavernous drug injection. Sacral neuromodulation, transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation, and intraurethral suppositories have been poorly studied, but preliminary studies did not show convincing results.
CONCLUSION
The best treatment options for erectile dysfunction in spinal cord injury patients emerged to be phosphodiesterase 5-inhibitors and intracavernous drug injection. The choice of erectile dysfunction treatment should be based on several aspects, including residual erectile function, spinal cord injury location, and patients' comorbidities. Future studies assessing the applicability of less well-studied treatments, as well as evaluating innovative options, are needed in this specific population.
Topics: Erectile Dysfunction; Humans; Injections; Male; Patient Satisfaction; Penile Erection; Penile Prosthesis; Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors; Prosthesis Implantation; Recovery of Function; Spinal Cord Injuries; Treatment Outcome; Vacuum; Vasodilator Agents
PubMed: 32741129
DOI: 10.1111/andr.12878 -
Sexual Medicine Reviews Oct 2021The most common cause of patient dissatisfaction after penile prosthesis placement is penile shortening compared with one's memory of a natural erection. Surgical... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The most common cause of patient dissatisfaction after penile prosthesis placement is penile shortening compared with one's memory of a natural erection. Surgical techniques as well as preoperative and postoperative protocols have been reported to preserve and possibly enhance penile length in someone undergoing penile prosthesis surgery.
OBJECTIVES
This article presents a description of as well as the authors' experience with presurgical protocols, intraoperative techniques, and postsurgical protocols that allow for preservation or enhancement of penile length for patients who undergo inflatable penile prosthesis insertion.
METHODS
An extensive, systematic literature review was performed using PubMed searching for key terms including penile lengthening, inflatablepenile prosthesis, penile girth, buried penis, and penile enhancement. All articles with subjective and/or objective penile length outcomes were reviewed.
RESULTS
Several preoperative treatment protocols were found for penile length preservation and enhancement, which included use of a vacuum erection device as well as traction therapy. Intraoperative techniques included cavernosal sparing, channeling without dilatation, circumferential penile degloving, ventral phalloplasty, suprapubic lipectomy, liposuction, suspensory ligament release, sliding technique, modified sliding technique, multislice technique, and aggressive implant sizing. Postoperative protocols included early device inflation and cycling. Table 1 summarizes and compares the various preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative strategies identified during literature review with their corresponding reported length gain.
CONCLUSIONS
Many preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative surgical techniques can be performed by high-volume implanters to improve one's perceived or true penile length. In the hands of experienced, high-volume implanters, these techniques can be very meaningful for patients undergoing penile prosthesis insertion, particularly those who are concerned with penile length. Shah B, Kent M, Valenzuela R. Advanced Penile Length Restoration Techniques to Optimize Penile Prosthesis Placement Outcomes. Sex Med Rev 2021;9:641-649.
Topics: Humans; Male; Penile Erection; Penile Implantation; Penile Prosthesis; Penis; Sex Reassignment Surgery
PubMed: 32653404
DOI: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2020.05.007