4.4 Article

Bulbocavernosus reflex testing: a preliminary study on the prognostic factors for potency and response to sildenafil citrate after bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy

期刊

INTERNATIONAL UROLOGY AND NEPHROLOGY
卷 42, 期 1, 页码 39-45

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11255-009-9581-6

关键词

Bulbocavernosus reflex; Bulbocavernosus reflex amplitude; Bulbocavernosus reflex latency; Erectile dysfunction; Radical prostatectomy; Sildenafil citrate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Erectile dysfunction (ED) following radical prostatectomy is of major concern for both patients and caring physicians. We evaluated the bulbocavernosus reflex latency (BCRL) and amplitude (BCRA) following bilateral nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy (NS-RRP) to predict the response to sildenafil citrate (SC). Patients were recruited in our ED clinic following NS-RRP. Exclusion criteria included preoperative significant ED, neurological disease, and nitrates treatment. Patients were defined as non-responders only after four consecutive unsuccessful trials of 100 mg SC. Twenty patients at least 3 months after surgery were included in this study. Five patients (25%) regained spontaneous erections, although insufficient for vaginal penetration. All of them had normal BCRL and normal BCRA as well as good response to 100 mg SC. Three patients (15%) lacked spontaneous erections and had prolonged BCRL with normal BCRA. This subgroup eventually regained erections using SC. Twelve patients (60%) lacked spontaneous erections and had prolonged BCRL and low BCRA. They failed SC trials and achieved erections using intra-cavernosal injections (ICI) of 10 mu g PGE(1). Neurophysiologic evaluation consisting of BCRL and BCRA was found to be useful in the prediction of the response to SC following bilateral NS-RRP. Patients who do not regain an erection, and have abnormal BCRL and BCRA 6 months after surgery, will probably be SC non-responders and may benefit from ICI. A subset of patients with preserved BCRA and prolonged latencies has been shown to have a better chance to respond to SC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据