Comparison of Satisfaction With Penile Prosthesis Implantation in Patients With Radical Prostatectomy or Radical Cystoprostatectomy to the General Population.

Erectile Dysfunction Patient Satisfaction Penile Implantation Penile Prosthesis Prostatectomy

Journal

Sexual medicine
ISSN: 2050-1161
Titre abrégé: Sex Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101631053

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Historique:
received: 17 11 2020
revised: 22 11 2020
accepted: 27 11 2020
pubmed: 12 1 2021
medline: 12 1 2021
entrez: 11 1 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Penile prosthesis implantation is a widely used treatment option for erectile dysfunction. Data is limited with regard to patient satisfaction with a penile prosthesis following radical prostatectomy/cystoprostatectomy vs patients with erectile dysfunction of other etiologies. To examine patient satisfaction with penile prosthesis implantation and determine if a difference in satisfaction exists in post-prostatectomy/cystoprostatectomy patients vs patients with erectile dysfunction of other etiologies. We hypothesize that etiology does not affect satisfaction. A total of 164 patients underwent penile prosthesis implantation at our institution between August 2017 and December 2019, with 102 patients completing a validated 14 item questionnaire, Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS), at 6 months postoperation. Demographics, surgical characteristics, and erectile dysfunction etiology were recorded. Patients were assigned to one of 2 groups: postprostatectomy/postcystoprostatectomy erectile dysfunction or other etiologies. The study group was further analyzed between radical prostatectomy or radical cystoprostatectomy. Satisfaction based on key EDITS questions with postradical prostatectomy/cystoprostatectomy vs patients with erectile dysfunction of other etiologies. Responses to 3 questions were analyzed: overall satisfaction, expectations met in the past 4 weeks, and confidence in the ability to participate in sexual activity. Chi-square analysis was performed to determine the difference in responses. No difference was seen in overall satisfaction (P = .96), expectations (P = .78), or confidence (P = .78) between groups. On subgroup analysis, there was no difference in reported overall satisfaction (P = .47) or confidence (P = .080) between postprostatectomy and postcystoprostatectomy patients. Postprostatectomy and postcystoprostatectomy patients differed in whether the penile prosthesis implantation met expectations (P = .033). Postprostatectomy patients reported a mean score of 3.5/4 compared to postcystoprostatectomy patients, who reported a mean of 3.0/4. Our analysis suggests that key erectile function scores are not significantly different between postprostatectomy/postcystoprostatectomy patients compared to other etiologies. The difference in measures between postprostatectomy and postcystoprostatectomy patients is not significant or of unclear significance. Registration # of clinical trial: HSC-MS-19-0320 Howell S, Palasi S, Green T, et al. Comparison of Satisfaction With Penile Prosthesis Implantation in Patients With Radical Prostatectomy or Radical Cystoprostatectomy to the General Population. Sex Med 2021;9:100300.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33429244
pii: S2050-1161(20)30187-2
doi: 10.1016/j.esxm.2020.100300
pmc: PMC7930877
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

100300

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Références

J Androl. 2003 Mar-Apr;24(2):239-45
pubmed: 12634311
BJU Int. 2016 Oct;118(4):641-5
pubmed: 26906935
J Sex Med. 2011 Dec;8(12):3479-86
pubmed: 21951645
Curr Urol. 2019 Oct;13(2):94-100
pubmed: 31768176
Int J Impot Res. 2011 Sep-Oct;23(5):181-92
pubmed: 21697860
J Sex Med. 2008 Jun;5(6):1503-12
pubmed: 18410306
J Sex Med. 2006 Jul;3(4):743-748
pubmed: 16839332
ScientificWorldJournal. 2015;2015:876046
pubmed: 25785286
J Sex Med. 2010 Jan;7(1 Pt 2):501-23
pubmed: 20092450
Can Oncol Nurs J. 2019 Oct 1;29(4):226-231
pubmed: 31966014
J Sex Med. 2017 Dec;14(12):1612-1620
pubmed: 29111200
J Urol. 2003 Mar;169(3):1175-9
pubmed: 12576876
Korean J Urol. 2015 Jun;56(6):461-5
pubmed: 26078844
J Urol. 2018 Sep;200(3):633-641
pubmed: 29746858
Curr Sex Health Rep. 2014 Sep;6(3):164-176
pubmed: 25878565
Urology. 1999 Apr;53(4):793-9
pubmed: 10197859
Asian J Androl. 2020 Jan-Feb;22(1):2-7
pubmed: 31793443

Auteurs

Skyler Howell (S)

Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Texas McGovern Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.

Stephen Palasi (S)

Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Texas McGovern Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.

Travis Green (T)

Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Texas McGovern Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Christopher Kannady (C)

Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Texas McGovern Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Sravan Panuganti (S)

Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Texas McGovern Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Kris Slaughter (K)

Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Texas McGovern Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Kyle Blum (K)

Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Texas McGovern Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Baibing Yang (B)

Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Texas McGovern Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.

Jose A Saavedra-Belaunde (JA)

Ashford Presbyterian Hospital, San Juan, PR, USA.

Run Wang (R)

Department of Surgery, Division of Urology, University of Texas McGovern Medical School at Houston, Houston, TX, USA; MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. Electronic address: Run.wang@uth.tmc.edu.

Classifications MeSH