Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26816818›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2015

Penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy: does it work?

Giorgio Gandaglia, Nazareno Suardi, Vito Cucchiara, Marco Bianchi, Shahrokh F Shariat, Morgan Roupret, Andrea Salonia, Francesco Montorsi, Alberto Briganti

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Suitable sexual health care according to men with prostate cancer and their partners.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

9 authors.

Giorgio Gandaglia1 Unit of Urology/Department of Oncology, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy ; 2 Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria ; 3 Academic Department of Urology of La-Pitié-Salpétrière, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), University Paris 6, Paris, France.
Nazareno Suardi1 Unit of Urology/Department of Oncology, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy ; 2 Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria ; 3 Academic Department of Urology of La-Pitié-Salpétrière, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), University Paris 6, Paris, France.
Vito Cucchiara1 Unit of Urology/Department of Oncology, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy ; 2 Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria ; 3 Academic Department of Urology of La-Pitié-Salpétrière, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), University Paris 6, Paris, France.
Marco Bianchi1 Unit of Urology/Department of Oncology, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy ; 2 Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria ; 3 Academic Department of Urology of La-Pitié-Salpétrière, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), University Paris 6, Paris, France.
Shahrokh F Shariat1 Unit of Urology/Department of Oncology, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy ; 2 Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria ; 3 Academic Department of Urology of La-Pitié-Salpétrière, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), University Paris 6, Paris, France.
Morgan Roupret1 Unit of Urology/Department of Oncology, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy ; 2 Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria ; 3 Academic Department of Urology of La-Pitié-Salpétrière, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), University Paris 6, Paris, France.
Andrea Salonia1 Unit of Urology/Department of Oncology, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy ; 2 Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria ; 3 Academic Department of Urology of La-Pitié-Salpétrière, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), University Paris 6, Paris, France.
Francesco Montorsi1 Unit of Urology/Department of Oncology, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy ; 2 Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria ; 3 Academic Department of Urology of La-Pitié-Salpétrière, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), University Paris 6, Paris, France.
Alberto Briganti1 Unit of Urology/Department of Oncology, URI, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy ; 2 Department of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria ; 3 Academic Department of Urology of La-Pitié-Salpétrière, Assistance-Publique Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP), University Paris 6, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextErectile dysfunction (ED) represents one of the most common long-term side effects in patients with clinically localized prostate cancer (PCa) undergoing nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (RP).

objectiveTo analyze the role of penile rehabilitation in the recovery of erectile function (EF) after nerve-sparing RP. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Penile rehabilitation is defined as the use of any intervention or combination with the goal not only to achieve erections sufficient for satisfactory sexual intercourses, but also to return EF to preoperative levels. The concept of rehabilitation is based on the implementation of protocols aimed at improving oxygenation, preserving endothelial structure, and preventing smooth muscle structural alterations. Nowadays, the most commonly adopted approaches for penile rehabilitation after nerve-sparing RP are represented by the administration of phosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors (PDE5-Is), intracorporeal injection therapy, vacuum erection devices (VED), and the combination of these therapies. Several basic science studies support the rational for the adoption of penile rehabilitation protocols. Particularly, rehabilitation, set as early as possible, seems to be better than leaving the erectile tissues unassisted. On the other hand, results from solid prospective randomized trials finally assessing the long-term beneficial effects of PDE5-Is, intracavernosal injections, or VED on EF recovery after surgery are still lacking.

conclusionsAlthough preclinical evidences support the rationale for penile rehabilitation after nerve-sparing RP, clinical studies reported conflicting results regarding its efficacy on long-term EF recovery. Nowadays, which is the optimal rehabilitation program still represents a matter of debate.

Indexed as

penile rehabilitationphosphodiesterase type-5 inhibitors (PDE5-Is)Prostate cancer (PCa)radical prostatectomy (RP)sexual function

Identifiers

PMID26816818
PMCPMC4708129

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.