Background: A limited number of studies within the literature have entailed objective evaluations of psychological, sexual, and emotional features of women within polygamous marriages. However, there is a lack of studies reporting these features among polygamous and monogamous men. Aims: The aim of this study was to investigate sociodemographic characteristics, sexual function, and psychological status of polygamously and monogamously married men. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: The study sample comprised two groups: 35 polygamous and 45 monogamous men in Kahramanmaraş Province, Turkey. Door-to-door surveys covered sociodemographic factors and adopted Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), and International Index of Erectile Function -Erectile Function Domain (IIEF-EFD) scales. Results: Polygamous men showed considerably higher IIEF-EFD scores (p<0.05). While the median score of IIEF-EFD was 25.0 for polygamous men, it was 22.0 for monogamous men. A comparison of the two groups revealed that polygamous men had lower BDI scores. However, the difference between the groups was statistically non-significant (p>0.05). Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals of monogamous men for erectile dysfunction and depression were 14.4 (95% CI: 3.1-67.5) and 7.4 (95% CI: 0.9-61.9), respectively. The main reasons for multiple marriages reported by polygamous men, in descending order, were: 1) decreased satisfaction of sexual desires by a wife (37.1%); 2) falling in love with the second wife (22.8%); and 3) incompatibility with the first wife (17.1%). However, 62.9% of them responded negatively to the question: "Would you recommend polygamous marriage to other men?" Conclusion: Our results showed that polygamous men had higher erectile function and lower depression scores than monogamous men. Further studies investigating the effects of polygamy on men's psychosexual function are warranted. Additionally, studies that address the perspectives of offspring and women's expectations within polygamous marriages should be conducted.
Objectives: In this study, we examined the value of prostate specific antigen (PSA) and digital rectal examination (DRE) in prostate cancer detection among men.Materials and methods: Between January 2006 and July 2011, transrectal prostate needle biopsy was performed in 349 patients with abnormal DRE and/or >4ng/ml serum total PSA level were involved in the study. According to the histopathological examination, the patients were divided into two groups as without and with prostate cancer and their data were compared.Results: At the end of the histopathological examination, 121 (32.4%) cases had prostate cancer and 252 (67.6%) cases found without prostate cancer. Mean age and mean PSA values were higher and prostate volume was lower in the prostate cancer group than the other group. Prostate cancer was detected in 73 of the patients (66.4%) whose DRE was abnormal. In prostate cancer group, Gleason scores of 47 patients' (38.8%) were "6", Gleason scores of 42 patients' (34.7%) were " 7" and Gleason scores of 32 patients' (26.5%) were between 8 and 10. Positive predictive values for high serum total PSA level (>4 ng/ml) and abnormal DRE were found as 39.7% and 66.4% respectively.
Conclusions:Only serum total PSA measurement or only DRE is inadequate differential methods for differentiation of benign and malign prostate diseases. When DRE was assessed with serum total PSA level, cancer detection rate and reliability increases. J Clin Exp Invest 2012; 3(1): 66-70
Imprint cytology is valuable tool for evaluating TRUS-guided core needle biopsy specimens from the prostate. Use of imprint cytology in combination with histopathology increases diagnostic accuracy when compared with histopathologic assessment alone.
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.