Русский
Erectile dysfunction associated with radical prostatectomy: appropriateness and methods to preserve potency
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/urology.2018.2.75-82
E.V. Shpot’, D.V. Chinenov, A.V. Amosov,Ya.N. Chernov, M.V. Yurova, Yu.V. Lerner
R.M. Fronshteyn Clinic of Urology, I.M. Sechenov First MSMU of Minzdrav of Russia (Sechenov University) Moscow, Russia; I.M. Sechenov First MSMU of Minzdrav of Russia (Sechenov University) Moscow, Russia; A.I. Strukov Department of Pathology, I.M. Sechenov First MSMU of Minzdrav of Russia (Sechenov University) Moscow, Russia
Relevance. Erectile dysfunction (ED) associated with radical prostatectomy (RP) affects 25-75% of patients and has a significant negative impact on their quality of life
Aim. To analyze the maintenance of erectile function after RP depending on the type of endoscopic access and nerve-sparing.
Materials and methods. This retrospective study comprised 231 patients with localized prostate cancer, who underwent surgery between February 2015 and February 2016. Surgery was performed using one of three approaches: laparoscopic, extraperitoneoscopic or robot-assisted. Nerve-sparing surgery was chosen were based on the Briganti nomogram (low risk of extraprostatic extension), Partin’s table, and taking into account the patient’s desire to maintain EF. EF and the quality of life were evaluated using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) questionnaire and the QoL (Quality of Life) scale.
Results. Nerve-sparing RP was performed in 153 patients. Nerve-sparing RP did not differ significantly from non-nerve sparing RP with regard to operative time (p=0.064) and blood loss (p=0.073). According to the pathomorphological study, the prostatic capsule was intact, and surgical margins were negative in all cases. The incidence of significant ED and complete loss of erectile function was greater in patients after non-nerve sparing RP compared with nerve sparing RP [(5.0 (0–10.0) vs. 6.5 (0.8–19,0) points according to the IIEF-5 scale, p=0.271)]; 96.2% versus 72.2% (p<0.001). Nerve-sparing RP had a statistically significant better effect on the quality of life: 1.63±1.16 points against 1.88±1.02 points (p=0.035).
Conclusion. The best outcomes were observed in patients undergoing robot-assisted RP. Nerve-sparing RP resulted in a lower rate of ED. This advantage without compromising the completeness of resection allows us to consider nerve-sparing RP as an appropriate and validated modality of preventing erectile dysfunction in properly selected patients.
Aim. To analyze the maintenance of erectile function after RP depending on the type of endoscopic access and nerve-sparing.
Materials and methods. This retrospective study comprised 231 patients with localized prostate cancer, who underwent surgery between February 2015 and February 2016. Surgery was performed using one of three approaches: laparoscopic, extraperitoneoscopic or robot-assisted. Nerve-sparing surgery was chosen were based on the Briganti nomogram (low risk of extraprostatic extension), Partin’s table, and taking into account the patient’s desire to maintain EF. EF and the quality of life were evaluated using the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) questionnaire and the QoL (Quality of Life) scale.
Results. Nerve-sparing RP was performed in 153 patients. Nerve-sparing RP did not differ significantly from non-nerve sparing RP with regard to operative time (p=0.064) and blood loss (p=0.073). According to the pathomorphological study, the prostatic capsule was intact, and surgical margins were negative in all cases. The incidence of significant ED and complete loss of erectile function was greater in patients after non-nerve sparing RP compared with nerve sparing RP [(5.0 (0–10.0) vs. 6.5 (0.8–19,0) points according to the IIEF-5 scale, p=0.271)]; 96.2% versus 72.2% (p<0.001). Nerve-sparing RP had a statistically significant better effect on the quality of life: 1.63±1.16 points against 1.88±1.02 points (p=0.035).
Conclusion. The best outcomes were observed in patients undergoing robot-assisted RP. Nerve-sparing RP resulted in a lower rate of ED. This advantage without compromising the completeness of resection allows us to consider nerve-sparing RP as an appropriate and validated modality of preventing erectile dysfunction in properly selected patients.
About the Autors
Corresponding author: Ya. N. Chernov – Ph.D. Student at the Department of Urology of Sechenov University, Urologist at the
R.M. Fronshteyn Clinic of Urology, I.M. Sechenov First MSMU of Minzdrav of Russia (Sechenov University) Moscow, Russia; e-mail: yarik.chernov@mail.ru
Similar Articles
