Introduction Altered perception of orgasm, orgasm-associated pain, penile sensory changes, urinary incontinence (UI) during sexual activity, penile shortening (PS), and penile deformity following radical prostatectomy (RP) have received increasing attention from researchers. Aim The aim of this study is to describe the prevalence and predictors of the above-mentioned side effects. Methods This was a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study among men who had undergone RP between 3 and 36 months prior to study inclusion. Predicting factors were identified through logistic regression analyses. Main Outcome Measures The primary outcome measures were prevalence rates of the above-mentioned side effects. Results Overall, 316 questionnaires were available for analyses. Of the sexually active patients (n = 256), 12 (5%) reported anorgasmia, whereas 153 (60%) reported decreased orgasm intensity. Delayed orgasms were reported by 146 (57%). Twenty-three patients (10%) had experienced pain during orgasm. UI during sexual activity were reported by 99 patients (38%). Out of the whole population, 77 patients (25%) reported sensory changes in the penis. A total of 143 patients (47%) reported a subjective loss of penile length of >1 cm. An altered curvature of the penis was reported by 30 patients (10%). Patients had increasing risk of UI during sexual activity (odds ratio [OR] 1.17; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10–1.25) and orgasmic dysfunction (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.01–1.16) with increasing International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire scores. Erectile dysfunction (OR 1.81; 95% CI 1.07–3.10) and a high body mass index (OR 1.10; 95% CI 1.02–1.19) increased the risk of PS after RP. Nerve-sparing (OR 0.32; 95% CI 0.16–0.95) reduced the risk of PS. Conclusions Orgasm-associated problems, UI during sexual activity, penile sensory changes, PS, and penile deformity are common side effects to RP. Daytime UI, erectile dysfunction, and nerve-sparing status can help identify patients at risk.

Introduction A series of previously neglected sexually related side effects to radical prostatectomy (RP) has been identified over the recent years. These include orgasm-associated incontinence (OAI), urinary incontinence in relation to sexual stimulation (UISS), altered perception of orgasm, orgasm-associated pain (OAP), penile shortening (PS), and penile deformity. Aim The aim of this article is to conduct a systematic review of the literature regarding the above-mentioned side effects. Methods A predefined search strategy was applied in a thorough search of Medline, Web of science, and the online Cochrane library. The PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews were followed, and protocol as well as search strategies was registered at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/Prospero/ (RN: CRD42012003165). Main Outcome Measure The main outcome measure was incidence rates for the relevant side effects. Results A total of 43 articles were included. OAI and UISS are experienced by 20–93% of RP patients at least a few times after surgery. Although these issues are associated to postoperative daytime incontinence, previous transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the only known predicting factor. Alterations of orgasmic function are experienced by approximately 80% after RP. Erectile dysfunction seems to play an important role in waning orgasmic function. OAP is only experienced by a subset of the patients with reported rates varying between 3% and 19%. Sparing of the tips of the seminal vesicles has been shown to double the risk of OAP. PS occurs in 15–68% of RP patients. Nerve sparing and preservation of erectile function may help preserve penile length. With regard to all side effects, studies indicate that they are reduced over time. Conclusions The sexually related side effects summarized in this review are common after RP. Meanwhile, it is difficult to predict which patients are at risk. Daytime incontinence, previous TURP, a lack of nerve sparing, and erectile dysfunction are all associated with the above-mentioned sexually related side effects.

Introduction Changes in sexual function other than erectile dysfunction are sparsely investigated after radiation therapy for prostate cancer. Aim To investigate orgasmic dysfunction, urinary incontinence during sexual activity, changes in penile morphology, and sensory disturbances in the penis in patients with prostate cancer treated with external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT). Methods In February 2015, men treated with EBRT at our center 3 months to 5 years previously (N = 519) received a study-specific questionnaire. This was developed from purpose-built questions and validated tools including the Erection Hardness Scale. All patients had received a radiation dose of 78 Gy. Androgen deprivation therapy was administered according to disease characteristics. Main Outcome Measures Outcome measurements were prevalence rates and predictors of these side effects as identified by multivariate logistic regression analyses. Results One hundred nine patients were eligible (sexually active and had completed androgen deprivation therapy) for inclusion. Twenty-four percent reported anorgasmia, 44% reported a decreased intensity of their orgasms, and 40% reported that the time it took to reach orgasm had increased. Eleven percent reported anejaculation. Fifteen percent reported orgasm-associated pain. Only 4% reported urinary incontinence during sexual activity. Subjective penile length loss in excess of 1 cm was reported by 42%. Twelve percent reported an altered curvature of their penis after EBRT. Six percent reported painful erections. Twenty-seven percent reported decreased sensitivity in the penis after EBRT, 2% reported a cold sensation, and 2% reported paresthesia. Increasing time since final treatment increased the risk of penile sensory disturbances (odds ratio = 1.05; P = .028). Conclusion Orgasmic dysfunction, changes in penile morphology, and sensory disturbances in the penis are common side effects of ERBT. Patients should be properly informed of the occurrence of these side effects before deciding which treatment to pursue.

Introduction: Low-intensity shockwave therapy (LISWT) has been investigated for the treatment of uroandrological disorders including erectile dysfunction (ED), Peyronie's disease (PD) and chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) with controversial findings. Aim: To review the evidence on LISWT for ED, PD, and CP/CPPS and provide clinical recommendations on behalf of the European Society of Sexual Medicine. Methods: Medline and Embase databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs), meta-analyses and open-label prospective or retrospective studies investigating the effect of LISWT on ED, PD, or CP/CPPS. Outcomes: The panel provided statements on clinically relevant questions concerning LISWT: (i) treatment efficacy, (ii) treatment protocol, (iii) clinical indications, and (iv) safety. The level of evidence was provided according to the Oxford 2011 criteria and graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine recommendations. Results: 11 RCTs and 5 meta-analyses investigated LISWT for ED. RCTs provided controversial results on the efficacy of LISWT and were affected by high heterogeneity and the small number of patients included. Pooleddata analysis showed an overall positive effect in terms of erectile function improvement but reported small estimates and included a largely heterogeneous cohort of patients. 4 RCTs and 1 meta-analysis assessed LISWT for PD. All trials showed positive findings in terms of pain relief but no effect on penile curvature and plaque size. Inclusion criteria vary widely among studies, and further investigation is needed. 5 RCTs investigated LISWT for CP/CPPS. Data showed a possible effect on pain relief, although there is no evidence supporting that pain relief was maintained or any improvement in pain over time. Clinical Implications: LISWT needs to be further investigated in the context of sexual medicine and is almost but not yet ready for clinical practice. Strengths and limitations: All studies have been evaluated by a panel of experts providing recommendations for clinical practice. Conclusions: LISWT is a safe and well-tolerated procedure but its efficacy for the treatment of ED is doubtful and deserves more investigation. Patients reporting pain associated with PD may benefit from LISWT, although no effect is expected on disease progression. LISWT is not a primary treatment for CP/CPPS, but it may be

LI-ESWT may improve erectile function after bilateral nerve-sparing RP. Based on these results, further studies in patients with ED after nerve-sparing RP are justified.