Comparison of satisfaction with penile prosthesis implantation in patients with prostate cancer radiation therapy versus radical prostatectomy

被引:2
|
作者
Mehr, Justin P. [1 ]
Blum, Kyle A. [1 ]
Green, Travis [1 ,2 ]
Howell, Skyler [1 ]
Palasi, Stephen [1 ]
Sullivan, Andrew T. [1 ]
Kim, Benjamin [1 ]
Kannady, Christopher [1 ,2 ]
Wang, Run [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] UTHealth Houston, McGovern Med Sch, Div Urol, Dept Surg, Houston, TX USA
[2] MD Anderson Canc Ctr, Dept Urol, Houston, TX USA
关键词
Inflatable penile prosthesis; Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS); radical prostatectomy (RP); radiation therapy; prostate cancer; ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION; ANDROGEN DEPRIVATION; PELVIC RADIATION; RADIOTHERAPY; SURVIVAL; HYPOGONADISM; RECOVERY; SURGERY; MEN;
D O I
10.21037/tau-22-600
中图分类号
R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Penile prosthesis surgery (PPS) is a commonly used treatment for erectile dysfunction (ED), either as first-line therapy or in cases refractory to other treatment options. In patients with a urologic malignancy such as prostate cancer, surgical interventions like radical prostatectomy ( RP) as well as non-surgical treatments such as radiation therapy can all induce ED. PPS as a treatment for ED has high satisfaction rates in the general population. Our aim was to compare sexual satisfaction in patients with prosthesis implantation for ED following RP versus ED following radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Methods: A retrospective chart review from our institutional database was conducted to identify patients who underwent PPS at our institution from 2011 to 2021. Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS) questionnaire data at least 6 months from implant operative date available was required for inclusion. Eligible patients were placed in one of two groups depending on etiology of ED-following RP or prostate cancer radiation therapy. To prevent crossover confounding; patients with history of pelvic radiation were excluded from the RP group and patients with history of RP were excluded from the radiation group. Data were obtained from 51 patients in the RP group and 32 patients in the radiation therapy group. Mean EDITS scores and additional survey questions were compared between the radiation and RP groups. Results: There was a significant difference in mean survey responses for 8 of the 11 questions in the EDITS questionnaire between the RP group and the radiation group. Additional survey questions administered also found RP patients reported significantly higher rate of satisfaction with size of penis post-operatively versus the radiation group. Conclusions: These preliminary findings, while requiring large-scale follow-up, suggest that there is greater sexual satisfaction and penile prosthesis device satisfaction in patients undergoing IPP placement following RP versus radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Use of validated questionnaires should continue to be utilized in quantifying device and sexual satisfaction following PPS.
引用
收藏
页码:690 / 699
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] SYNCHRONOUS PENOSCROTAL IMPLANTATION OF PENILE PROSTHESIS AND ARTIFICIAL URINARY SPHINCTER AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY
    Bolat, Deniz
    Kozacioglu, Zafer
    Polat, Salih
    Koras, Omer
    Arslan, Murat
    Minareci, Suleyman
    ARCHIVOS ESPANOLES DE UROLOGIA, 2017, 70 (03): : 367 - 372
  • [32] Salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrent prostate cancer after radiation therapy
    Leonardo, Costantino
    Simone, Giuseppe
    Papalia, Rocco
    Franco, Giorgio
    Guaglianone, Salvatore
    Gallucci, Michele
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2009, 16 (06) : 584 - 586
  • [33] Salvage radical prostatectomy for recurrence of prostate cancer after radiation therapy
    James A. Eastham
    Christopher J. DiBlasio
    Peter T. Scardino
    Current Urology Reports, 2003, 4 (3) : 211 - 215
  • [34] Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage Radiation Therapy Following Radical Prostatectomy for Men with Localized Prostate Cancer
    Dess, Robert T.
    Morgan, Todd M.
    Nguyen, Paul L.
    Mehra, Rohit
    Sandler, Howard M.
    Feng, Felix Y.
    Spratt, Daniel E.
    CURRENT UROLOGY REPORTS, 2017, 18 (07)
  • [35] Primary Radiation Therapy Versus Radical Prostatectomy for High-risk Prostate Cancer: A Decision Analysis
    Parikh, R. B.
    Sher, D. J.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2012, 84 (03): : S125 - S125
  • [36] Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage Radiation Therapy Following Radical Prostatectomy for Men with Localized Prostate Cancer
    Robert T. Dess
    Todd M. Morgan
    Paul L. Nguyen
    Rohit Mehra
    Howard M. Sandler
    Felix Y. Feng
    Daniel E. Spratt
    Current Urology Reports, 2017, 18
  • [37] Survival after radical prostatectomy versus radiation therapy in clinical node-positive prostate cancer
    Chierigo, Francesco
    Borghesi, Marco
    Wuernschimmel, Christoph
    Flammia, Rocco S.
    Horlemann, Benedikt
    Sorce, Gabriele
    Hoeh, Benedikt
    Tian, Zhe
    Saad, Fred
    Graefen, Markus
    Gallucci, Michele
    Briganti, Alberto
    Montorsi, Francesco
    Chun, Felix K. H.
    Shariat, Shahrokh F.
    Mantica, Guglielmo
    Suardi, Nazareno
    Terrone, Carlo
    Karakiewicz, Pierre, I
    PROSTATE, 2022, 82 (06): : 740 - 750
  • [38] Comparison of efficacy and satisfaction profile, between penile prosthesis implantation and oral PDE5 inhibitor Tadalafil therapy, in men with nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy erectile dysfunction
    Megas, Georgios
    Papadopoulos, Georgios
    Stathouros, Georgios
    Moschonas, Dimitrios
    Gkialas, Ioannis
    Ntoumas, Konstantinos
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2013, 112 (02) : E169 - E176
  • [39] Robotic radical prostatectomy in patients with preexisting inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP)
    Rehman, Jamil
    Guru, Khurshid
    Chughtai, Bilal
    Shabsigh, Ridwan
    Samadi, David
    CANADIAN JOURNAL OF UROLOGY, 2008, 15 (05) : 4263 - 4265
  • [40] A comparison of prostate cancer nomograms in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy
    Nason, G. J.
    O'Connor, E. M.
    Macmahon, D.
    Moss, B.
    Considine, S. W.
    Cahill, A.
    O'Rourke, C.
    O'Brien, F.
    BJU INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 118 : 37 - 38