(333) Sexual Function Recovery Following Open And Robotic Radical Prostatectomy: Results Of An Academic Penile Rehabilitation Program

Dr Michele Di Nauta,Dr Ugo G Falagario,Dr Anna Ricapito,Dr Pasquale Annese,Dr Matteo Rubino,Prof Gian M Busetto,Prof Luigi Cormio,Prof Giuseppe Carrieri,Carlo Bettocchi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jsxmed/qdae041.020
2024-06-15
The Journal of Sexual Medicine
Abstract:Objectives Radical prostatectomy (RP) is the gold standard treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) in patients with a life expectancy 10 yr. Notwithstanding improvements in surgical techniques, erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common sequela of RP. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of early penile rehabilitation in a dedicated Penile Rehabilitation Program on both assisted and unassisted erectile function (EF) in men who developed ED after open and robotic RP. Methods All patients undergoing open or robotic RP and early penile rehabilitation were included in the present study. All patients were treated and followed up at a single academic institution in a dedicated Penile Rehabilitation Program. Treatment included phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5Is), intracavernous injections and vacuum erection devices (VEDs). EF recovery was defined as IIEF>20. Data were prospectively collected and retrospectively reviewed. Kaplan Mayer curves were used to evaluate EF recovery. Results A total of 570 patients met the inclusion criteria. 397 patients underwent rehabilitation. 168 (42.3%) underwent robotic RP. Unilateral and bilateral nerve sparing was performed in 38 (9.6%) and 116 (29.2%) patients respectively. A combination of PDE5I and intracavernous injections was the most frequently used first line treatment (233, 59%). VEDs were used in 52 patients in addition to PDE5I and intracavernous injections (39, 10%) or intracavernous injections (23, 6%). In patients with a preoperative IIEF>21, assisted and unassisted EF recovery rates were 78% and 36% respectively. In patients with a preoperative IIEF<16, assisted and unassisted EF recovery rates were 46% and 18% respectively. Sub analysis showed a moderate benefit of penile rehabilitation also in patients with a preoperative IIEF<16 undergoing bilateral nerve sparing RP. Conclusions Intensive penile rehabilitation programs improves EF recovery in patients undergoing radical prostatectomy. Preservation of Neurovascular bundles should be attempted also in patients with preoperative ED. Conflicts of Interest No conflicts of interest.
urology & nephrology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?