Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26816725›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2013

The science of vacuum erectile device in penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy.

Haocheng Lin, Run Wang

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Haocheng Lin1 Division of Urology, University of Texas Medical School at Houston Texas, USA ; 2 Department of Urology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.
Run Wang1 Division of Urology, University of Texas Medical School at Houston Texas, USA ; 2 Department of Urology, University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRadical prostatectomy (RP) is a standard surgical treatment for clinically localized prostate cancer. Erectile dysfunction (ED) and penile shrinkage are common complications. Vacuum Erectile Device (VED) therapy uses negative pressure to distend the corporal sinusoids and to increase blood inflow into the penis. It is the second most commonly used method for penile rehabilitation after RP. However, the underlying mechanisms are still unclear. This paper is designed to review the scientific evidences of VED therapy after RP and discuss the possible mechanisms.

methodsWe reviewed published papers of post-prostatectomy penile rehabilitation using VED. We analyzed the scientific evidences of VED therapy and discussed the possible underlying mechanisms.

resultsThere are existing clinical evidences for VED therapy to improve ED and preserve penile size. Emerging basic scientific evidence is available and further study is still needed to understand the mechanisms at the molecular level.

conclusionsCurrent clinical evidences support the safety, tolerability, effectiveness and benefits of early VED therapy after RP. The available basic scientific evidences demonstrate that VED therapy for penile rehabilitation is achieved by increasing arterial inflow, anti-apoptotic, anti-fibrotic and anti-hypoxia mechanisms.

Indexed as

Erectile dysfunctionpenile rehabilitationpenile shrinkageradical prostatectomyvacuum erectile device

Identifiers

PMID26816725
PMCPMC4708600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.