Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36915873›Full record

ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2023

Radial wave therapy does not improve early recovery of erectile function after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: a prospective trial.

Darren J Bryk, Prithvi B Murthy, Kyle J Ericson, Daniel A Shoskes

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Survey of the quality and origins of websites on penile low-intensity shockwave therapy in Canada.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2023
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Darren J BrykCleveland Clinic Foundation, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Prithvi B MurthyCleveland Clinic Foundation, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Kyle J EricsonCleveland Clinic Foundation, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Daniel A ShoskesCleveland Clinic Foundation, Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Cleveland Clinic · USUniversity Hospitals of Cleveland · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Low intensity shockwave therapy is an emerging treatment option for men with vasculogenic erectile dysfunction. Radial wave therapy (rWT), which differs from focused shockwave (fSWT) as it produces lower pressure waves with lower peak energy, is used to treat soft tissue and skin conditions and has some data to support its use in vasculogenic erectile dysfunction. There is limited data for the use of rWT for the treatment of erectile dysfunction after nerve-sparing (NS) radical prostatectomy. We report the first trial of rWT for penile rehabilitation after NS radical prostatectomy. Methods: We performed a prospective, non-randomized, open-label trial. Men with good pre-operative erectile function who underwent a NS radical prostatectomy at our institution from 2018-2020 were considered for inclusion. We compared post-operative erectile function outcomes between the rWT (6 weekly treatments initiated approximately 2 weeks post-operatively) plus standard of care (phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor) arm and the non-sham controlled standard of care arm. The primary end point for our study was the proportion of men who returned to "near normal" erectile function, defined as IIEF-5 score ≥17 and erectile hardness score (EHS) ≥3, by 3 months post-operatively between the intervention and control arm. We also compared mean IIEF-5 scores and median EHSs between the arms. Results: One hundred and six patients were enrolled, of whom 73 patients had at least one reported survey response between 6 and 12 weeks post-operatively. Five (17%) and 11 (26%) patients recovered erectile function in the control and intervention arms, respectively, which was not a statistically significant difference (P=0.37). However, the intervention arm did have a significantly higher median EHS compared to the control arm (1 Conclusions: rWT is safe but did not substantially improve the recovery of early erectile function after NS radical prostatectomy.

Indexed as

Erectile dysfunction (ED)penile rehabilitationprostate cancerradial shockwave therapyshockwave

Identifiers

PMID36915873
PMCPMC10006002
OpenAlexW4319299136

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.