ReviewTherapeutic advances in urology
Regenerative technology to restore and preserve erectile function in men following prostate cancer treatment: evidence for penile rehabilitation in the context of prostate cancer survivorship.
Review in Therapeutic advances in urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Erectile Dysfunction in Pelvic Cancer Survivors and Current Management Options.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionErectile dysfunction (ED) following prostate cancer treatment is not uncommon and penile rehabilitation is considered the standard of care in prostate cancer survivorship (PCS), where both patient and his partner desire to maintain and/or recover pre-treatment erectile function (EF). There is a clinical interest in the role of regenerative therapy to restore EF, since existing ED treatments do not always achieve adequate results.
aimTo review regenerative therapies for the treatment of ED in the context of PCS. MATERIALS AND
methodsA review of the existing PubMed literature on low-intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (LIESWT), stem cell therapy (SCT), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), gene therapy, and nerve graft/neurorrhaphy in the treatment of ED and penile rehabilitation, was undertaken.
resultsIESWT promotes neovascularization and neuroprotection in men with ED. While several systematic reviews and meta-analyses showed positive benefits, there is limited published clinical data in men following radical prostatectomy. Cellular-based technology such as SCT and PRP promotes cellular proliferation and the secretion of various growth factors to repair damaged tissues, especially in preclinical studies. However, longer-term clinical outcomes and concerns regarding bioethical and regulatory frameworks need to be addressed. Data on gene therapy in post-prostatectomy ED men are lacking; further clinical studies are required to investigate the optimal use of growth factors and the safest vector delivery system. Conceptually interpositional cavernous nerve grafting and penile re-innervation technique using a somatic-to-autonomic neurorrhaphy are attractive, but issues relating to surgical technique and potential for neural 'regeneration' are questionable.
conclusionIn contrast to the existing treatment regime, regenerative ED technology aspires to promote endothelial revascularization and neuro-regeneration. Nevertheless, there remain considerable issues related to these regenerative technologies and techniques, with limited data on longer-term efficacy and safety records. Further research is necessary to define the role of these alternative therapies in the treatment of ED in the context of penile rehabilitation and PCS.
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.