ArticleCentral European journal of urology2015
Improvement in sexual function after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: A rehabilitation program with involvement of a clinical sexologist.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Couple Counseling and Pelvic Floor Muscle Training for Men Operated for Prostate Cancer and for Their Female Partners: Results From the Randomized ProCan Trial.Sexual medicine · 2021Article
- Focusing on sexual rehabilitation besides penile rehabilitation following radical prostatectomy is important.International journal of impotence research · 2021Review
- Preliminary evidence of the impact of social distancing on psychological status and functional outcomes of patients who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy.Central European journal of urology · 2020Article
- Sustainable long-term results on postoperative sexual activity after radical prostatectomy when a clinical sexologist is included in the sexual rehabilitation process. A retrospective study on 7 years postoperative outcome.Central European journal of urology · 2020Article
- The controversy surrounding penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy.Translational andrology and urology · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTo prospectively evaluate if the inclusion of a clinical sexologist in a penile and sexual rehabilitation program improves sexual function one year after prostate cancer surgery. MATERIAL AND
methodsTwelve months after da Vinci Radical Prostatectomy (dVRP) for prostate cancer, 28 fully potent (IIEF-5 >21) and sexually active men (ages 47-69 years, mean 61) who, in 2008, were enrolled in a prospectively monitored penile rehabilitation program (reference group) were compared with 79 fully potent (IIEF-5 >21) and sexually active men (ages 45-74 years, mean 61) enrolled in 2009 (study group); whose program differed by the inclusion of evaluation and treatment by a clinical sexologist.
resultsTwelve months after dVRP, seventeen patients in the reference group (61%) were sexually active with regular penetrating sexual activity compared to sixty-six (84%) in the study group (p = 0.02). These findings were independent of whether they had undergone a nerve sparing or non-nerve sparing procedure. Almost 94% (74 patients) in the study group had at some time been able to perform penetrating sexual activity; 14 patients required additional visits to the clinical sexologist beyond the routine follow-up, 9 for short-term cognitive behavior therapy.
conclusionsInclusion of a clinical sexologist in a penile and sexual rehabilitation program appears to improve the ability to have regular sexual activity with penetrating sex one year after da Vinci Robotic Radical Prostatectomy.
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.