Original Article
Penile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy: patients’ attitude and feasibility in China
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the behavior of Chinese erectile dysfunction (ED) patients after radical prostatectomy (RP) who were offered the penile rehabilitation and to assess their attitude and feasibility of rehabilitation after RP in China.
Materials and methods: Comprehensive medical and sexual histories of 187 evaluable PCa patients for RP were obtained together with their attitude towards penile rehabilitation. The rehabilitation data was compared between patients who accepted this treatment or not. The successful intercourse rate six months after treatment was also compared among three rehabilitation interventions, including phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE-5i), vacuum erection device (VED) and combination of both.
Results: 141 (75.4%) patients reported being sexually active in the six months before RP.122 (65.2%) patients wished to preserve sexual activity and 80 (42.8%) had interest in penile rehabilitation after RP. Penile rehabilitation rate was 30.5%. The patients with younger age (P<0.001), higher IIEF-5 score preoperatively (P=0.03) and no adjuvant therapy post-RP (P=0.01) were more acceptable for rehabilitation. Main reasons for refusal of rehabilitation included lack of sexual interest followed by high cost of treatment. The successful intercourse rate was not significantly different among three rehabilitation interventions (P=0.32).
Conclusions: Less than one-third of Chinese RP patients accepted penile rehabilitation postoperatively. Patients’ attitude towards rehabilitation was conservative because of many reasons from traditional Chinese culture, doctors and patients themselves. Penile rehabilitation was feasible and effective in Chinese RP patients.
Materials and methods: Comprehensive medical and sexual histories of 187 evaluable PCa patients for RP were obtained together with their attitude towards penile rehabilitation. The rehabilitation data was compared between patients who accepted this treatment or not. The successful intercourse rate six months after treatment was also compared among three rehabilitation interventions, including phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE-5i), vacuum erection device (VED) and combination of both.
Results: 141 (75.4%) patients reported being sexually active in the six months before RP.122 (65.2%) patients wished to preserve sexual activity and 80 (42.8%) had interest in penile rehabilitation after RP. Penile rehabilitation rate was 30.5%. The patients with younger age (P<0.001), higher IIEF-5 score preoperatively (P=0.03) and no adjuvant therapy post-RP (P=0.01) were more acceptable for rehabilitation. Main reasons for refusal of rehabilitation included lack of sexual interest followed by high cost of treatment. The successful intercourse rate was not significantly different among three rehabilitation interventions (P=0.32).
Conclusions: Less than one-third of Chinese RP patients accepted penile rehabilitation postoperatively. Patients’ attitude towards rehabilitation was conservative because of many reasons from traditional Chinese culture, doctors and patients themselves. Penile rehabilitation was feasible and effective in Chinese RP patients.
