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.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of vacuum erectile device in refractory erectile dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal of impotence research · 2026Pooled it
- Penile Rehabilitation After Surgery for Prostate Cancer: An Umbrella Review on Traditional Approaches and Novel Perspectives.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Oncosexology: A Narrative Review on Sexual Health and Quality of Life in Cancer Patients.Cancer medicine · 2026Review
- Health literacy correlates, barriers, and adherence in post-prostatectomy sexual rehabilitation: cross-sectional findings from China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.