Generating comprehensive comparative evidence on various interventions for penile rehabilitation in patients with erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Dechao Feng,Shengzhuo Liu,Yubo Yang,Yunjin Bai,Dengxiong Li,Ping Han,Wuran Wei
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/tau-20-892
Abstract:Background: We aim to present a comprehensive comparison of various treatments in the management of penile recovery after radical prostatectomy (RP) and provide recommendations for future research. Methods: Literature search of electronic databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, PsycInfo, and Web of Science, and manual retrieval were conducted from inception through March 2020. "Erectile dysfunction" and "prostatectomy" were used as the Mesh terms. The patients, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design (PICOS) approach were used to define study eligibility. Two authors independently selected studies, evaluated the methodological quality, and extracted data using Cochrane Collaboration's tools. The data analysis was completed by STATA version 14.2. Results: A total of 24 studies with 3,500 patients were incorporated in the final analysis after screening 6,131 records. Our findings indicated that vacuum constriction devices (VCD) ranked 1st which meant that patients in VCD group had the best effect regarding mean IIEF scores within 3 months after RP, and no significant difference was observed between VCD and VCD with 20 mg/day tadalafil (V20DT) (MD: 5.44; 95% CI: -0.81 to 11.69). VCD and 50 mg/day sildenafil (VC50DS) showed superiority over 50 mg/day sildenafil (50DS) (MD: 3.75; 95% CI: 2.74-4.76) and intraurethral alprostadil 125-250 µg (MD: 3.05; 95% CI: 0.38 to 5.72), respectively. Moreover, V20DT showed significant superiority over the other interventions for ≥6 months mean International Index Erectile of Function (IIEF) scores after RP. Monotherapy appeared to have similar efficacy in terms of mean IIEF scores and proportion of patients return to baseline, and the effect of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5is) did not seem to be affected by the patterns of administration (regular or on demand). Conclusions: The combination therapy showed certain advantages over monotherapy, and we recommended the combination of VCD and PDE5is to be considered in the clinical management of penile rehabilitation after RP.