The Role of Vacuum Erection Devices in Penile Rehabilitation after Posterior Urethral Anastomotic Urethroplasty: A Pilot Study

Lujie Song,Qiang Fu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsxm.2016.11.064
2016-01-01
The Journal of Sexual Medicine
Abstract:To assess the efficacy and safety of vacuum erection devices(VED) for the penile rehabilitation in patients with pelvic fracture urethral distraction defects (PFUDD) who underwent posterior urethral anastomotic urethroplasty. This prospective study consisted of 53 patients who underwent successfully primary bulboprostatic anastomosis with a perineal approach and developed erectile dysfunction following surgery between Jan 2012 and Jun 2015. The patients were randomized to VED combined with Tadalafil (5mg) use daily (Group 1, n=24) or Tadalafil (5mg) use daily (Group 2, N=29) for 6 months. The International Index of Erectile Function-5(IIEF-5), nocturnal penile tumescence (NPT) testing and dynamic color-duplex Doppler ultrasonography (D-CDDU) was used as the evaluation tools. Assessments were made at 2 time points: 1 month and 7 months after urethroplasty. No patients ended the penile rehabilitation program because of treatment-related adverse events in both groups. In Group 1, 70.8% (17/24) patients have erections sufficient to finish the vaginal intercourse compared to 41.4% (12/29) in Group 2 at 7 months after urethroplasty. At 7 months after urethroplasty, the IIEF-5 score is (18±7.8) and (14±5.1) respectively in Group 1 and Group 2 (P<0.05). According to D-CDDU, the cavernosal artery peak systolic velocity (PSV) is (38.5±25.3) cm/second and (30.2±21.9) cm/second(P<0.05), the cavernosal artery end diastolic velocity(EDV) is (6.5±4.6) cm/second and (6.2±3.7) cm/second (P>0.05), and the penile length change is (3.1±1.5) cm and (2.7±1.8) cm (P<0.05) respectively in Group 1 and Group 2 after drug injection. NPT testing shows that the number of erectile events is (2.6±1.4) and (2.0±1.8) (P<0.05), the duration of erectile events is (35.9±28.5) min and (32.1±21.4)min (P>0.05), and the penile circumference change is (2.3±1.1) cm and (2.0±0.9) cm (P<0.05= respectively in Group 1 and Group 2.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?