ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2013
[Rehabilitation of erectile function after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: therapeutic concepts in Germany].
Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- [Sexuality of couples 5 years after radical prostatectomy. Sexuality of patients and their partners 1 year postoperatively in sexually active couples].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2015Trial
- [Sexuality after radical prostatectomy: Evaluation of erectile function and patient counseling regarding their sex life].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2015Trial
- [Three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis implantation in clinical practice].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDespite objective published data regarding rehabilitation of erectile function (EF) after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (nsRP) the gold-standard treatment is still under debate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the distribution of the different treatment options in Germany. PATIENTS AND
methodsBetween October 2010 and May 2012 a questionnaire was sent to urologists in outpatient, general and university hospitals and rehabilitation hospitals in Germany. The survey consisted of various questions concerning, e.g. if and what kind of therapy urologists choose to support rehabilitation of EF after nsRP. Further questions dealt with the frequency, duration and optimal start of the chosen therapy.
resultsCurrently 188 urologists have completed and returned the questionnaire. The distribution was urologists in hospitals n=79 and outpatient/ambulatory n=106, with 24 % performing surgical treatment and urologists in rehabilitation hospitals n=3. The question about the rehabilitation concept showed 39 different forms of treatment within this group. To increase EF after nsRP PDE5 inhibitors were mostly administered (88 %) with 45 % on request compared to 55 %on a daily or regular basis ≥ 3 times/week. The use of penile injection therapy, medicated urethral system for erection (MUSE) and vacuum constriction devices (VCD) was prescribed by 32 %, 6 % and 30 % of urologists, respectively. Only 14 % of the urologists did not choose any active kind of rehabilitation treatment for EF recovery after nsRP.
conclusionMany different therapeutic concepts are currently performed in Germany to increase EF recovery after nsRP. The use of PDE5 inhibitors is the most commonly chosen treatment option. Despite published data regarding effectiveness, the optimal treatment seems to be still unknown.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.