Introduction: Post-radical prostatectomy erectile dysfunction (post-RPED) is a common and potentially devastating complication. The role of PDE5-inhibitors (PDE5-Is) in post-RPED is controversial and invasive pharmacological treatments are associated with poor long-term compliance. Vacuum erection devices (VEDs) are a non-pharmacological alternative. Little data regarding VED efficacy and associated patient satisfaction in post-RPED exists. This study aimed to investigate the outcomes of VED therapy in a post-robot assisted radical prostatectomy (post-RARP) population. Methods: All men who underwent RARP at a single centre between February 2015 and October 2017 attended a nurse-led holistic-needs-assessment (HNA) appointment at 10 weeks post-RARP. All men identifying ED as a concern at HNA were offered dedicated nurse-led post-RPED clinic and VED clinic appointments. A cross-sectional survey of patient reported outcomes in these men was performed. Results: In total 137/539 (25%) men reported ED as a concern at HNA. All 137 men attended the VED clinic, 124/137 (90%) responded to the survey. Commonest reason for choosing VED therapy was for combined psychological, penetration and lengthening purposes (48%). Median time from RARP to VED clinic and from VED clinic to survey was 122 days (range 56–595) and 462 days (range 66–932) respectively. At survey 88/124(70.9%) reported continued use of VED, 69/88 (78%) of this group perceived VED treatment to be successful. Of those who had stopped using VED, 7/36 (19%) felt it had been successful. Key reasons for discontinuation were either because men felt it ineffective (13/36 (37%)) or disliked the device (10/36 (29%)). Conclusion: VED therapy is an effective treatment for men with post-RARP ED that is well tolerated with good short- to medium-term compliance. Up to two-thirds of men may find overall satisfaction with their post-RPED after VED therapy. Level of Evidence: 3
Introduction Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the minimally invasive procedure of choice for the treatment of large and/or complex nephrolithiasis. Migration of residual fragments (RFs) into the ureter after PCNL is presumed to be uncommon. However, should associated stone-related events (SREs) occur, ancillary procedures may be required. The objective of this study was to describe the frequency and to analyze predictors of antegrade migration of RFs after PCNL. Material and methods A case-control study of patients who underwent PCNL for nephrolithiasis and had a postoperative computed tomography available within 48 hours was performed. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analysis were carried out. Results The final sample included 169 interventions. Mean age was 49 ±13 years, median maximum stone size was 26 (7 to 87) mm and mean stone density was 835 (70 to 2022) Hounsfield Units (HUs). 7.1% of the patients experienced migration of RFs into the ureter after PCNL, of whom 41.6% suffered SREs. Lithotripsy was performed using ultrasonic (67.5%), laser (23.7%), and pneumatic (14.8%) technologies. Univariate analysis found female gender (OR 4.1, p = 0.02) height ≥1.68 m (OR 5.52, p = 0.009), middle (OR 6.71, p = 0.01) and upper (OR 3.59, p = 0.04) caliceal location, staghorn calculi (OR 4.72, p = 0.02), stone area (OR 1.001, p = 0.03), lasertripsy (OR 3.61, p = 0.03) and operative time (OR 1.007, p = 0.02) statistically significant for migration of SFs into the ureter after PCNL. Of these, only height ≥1.68 m (OR 7.17, p = 0.01) and staghorn nephrolithiasis (OR 13.27, p = 0.02) remained independent predictors in the multivariate analysis with an area under the curve of 0.69. Conclusions 71.% of patients undergoing PCNL had a SF migrating to the ureter. Of these 41% suffered a SRE that required ancilliary interventions. Staghorn nephrolithiasis and ≥1.68 mts of height were found to predict this event.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.