Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37085734›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of impotence research2024

Vacuum erection device for erectile function rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy: which is the correct schedule? Results from a systematic, scoping review.

Giacomo Maria Pirola, Angelo Naselli, Martina Maggi, Marilena Gubbiotti, Emanuele Rubilotta, Teoh Jeremy Yuen-Chun, Andrea Guarneri, Vineet Gauhar, Daniele Castellani

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of impotence research, 2024. 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
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Observational
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 at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Giacomo Maria PirolaDepartment of Urology, San Giuseppe Hospital, IRCCS Multimedica, Milano, Italy. gmo.pirola@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4209-8670
Angelo NaselliDepartment of Urology, San Giuseppe Hospital, IRCCS Multimedica, Milano, Italy.
Martina MaggiMaternal Infant and Urologic Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Marilena GubbiottiDepartment of Urology, Usl Toscana Sud Est, San Donato Hospital, Arezzo, Italy.
Emanuele RubilottaDepartment of Urology, A.O.U.I. Verona University, Verona, Italy.
Teoh Jeremy Yuen-ChunDepartment of Surgery, S.H. Ho Urology Center, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Andrea GuarneriDepartment of Urology, San Giuseppe Hospital, IRCCS Multimedica, Milano, Italy.
Vineet GauharDepartment of Urology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.
Daniele CastellaniDepartment of Urology, University Hospital "Ospedali Riuniti" and Polytechnic University of Marche Region, Ancona, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7354-9190
MultiMedica · ITChinese University of Hong Kong · HKMarche Polytechnic University · ITNg Teng Fong General Hospital · SGOspedale San Donato · ITPoliclinico Umberto I · ITUniversity of Verona · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vacuum erection device (VED), for its capacity to improve the peak flow and elasticity of cavernous arteries, is a well-known tool to improve recovery of erectile function (EF) after radical prostatectomy. Aim of this study is to compare the different therapeutic schemes proposed in literature to find the most effective timing for VED treatment and to evaluate its efficacy alone or associated with phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (PDE5i). We performed a systematic review of Literature in October 2022 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Controlled Register of Trials to retrieve all articles dealing with EF rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy (excluding non-English papers, reviews, or meeting abstracts). Patients were divided among those receiving VED alone or combined with other treatments. Study outcomes were compared dividing them between those with follow-up shorter or longer than 12 months. Sixteen papers were included according to selection criteria. Among them, seven were randomized-controlled trials, five were prospective observational studies and four were retrospective. VED alone was evaluated in eight articles, while the remaining papers evaluated the combination of VED with PDE5i. Regarding VED therapeutic protocol, 7/16 studies used it daily. Rehabilitation protocol lasted less than 1 year in 4 studies, up to 12 months in 6 studies and more than 1 year in 6 studies. All the studies show improvement in International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire (IIEF-5), conservation of penile length and satisfactory intercourses when compared to controls. VED results appear to increase when patients were addressed to VED-dedicated programs to enhance their compliance with the device.

Indexed as

Erectile DysfunctionPenile ErectionProstatectomyHumansMalePhosphodiesterase 5 InhibitorsTreatment OutcomeVacuumPhosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID37085734
OpenAlexW4366685059

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.