Cited by 90Sexual function and dysfunction studiesUrological Disorders and TreatmentsUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research

Comparative evaluation of treatments for erectile dysfunction in patients with prostate cancer after radical retropubic prostatectomy

Baniel, J., Israilov, S., Segenreich, E., Livne, P.M.·2001·BJU International

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of a progressive local treatment protocol for erectile dysfunction (ED) in patients after undergoing radical retropubic prostatectomy (RRP) for prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 85 patients (mean age 59.5 years, range 50--75) with ED after RRP. Treatment was offered in four progressive phases, with patients passing to the next phase only if they failed the previous one: in phase I patients used a vacuum erection device; in phase II, sildenafil; in phase III, intracorporal injection; and in phase IV, intracorporal injection plus the vacuum erection device. The patients were followed for 1 year. RESULTS: Of the 85 patients, 78 (92%) responded to the vacuum erection device (with an erection sufficient for vaginal penetration), but only 11 (14%) agreed to continue with it at home. Of the remaining 74 patients, 69 with no contraindications were given sildenafil and 14 (20%) had a positive response. Sixty patients were then treated with intracorporal injection and 51 (85%) had a positive response; four of the nine failures in phase III responded to intracorporal injection plus vacuum therapy. Five patients failed all four protocols. After 1 year of follow-up, 76 of the 80 patients were successfully continuing treatment at home; seven (9%) used the vacuum erection device, 11 (14%) sildenafil, 54 (71%) intracorporal injection and four (5%) intracorporal injection plus the vacuum erection device. CONCLUSION: Overall, this progressive treatment method gave a positive response in 80 of the 85 patients (94%). After 1 year of follow-up, 76 of the 80 patients (95%) continued to respond well. Of all the methods used, intracorporal injection was the most effective for ED after RRP.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1464-410x.2001.02254.x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 30 · Cited by 90

Authors
Baniel, J., Israilov, S., Segenreich, E., & Livne, P. M.
Affiliations
Tel Aviv University (IL)
Corresponding author
Israilov, S.
Venue
BJU International
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-07
Volume
88
Issue
1
Pages
58-62
ISSN
  • 1464-4096 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-410X
OpenAlex
W1506490935
Cited by
90
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Urology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCLA - Biblioteca de Ciencias de la Salud (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urological Disorders and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Keywords
erectile dysfunction, prostate cancer, radical retropubic prostatectomy, vacuum erection devices, sildenafil, intracavernous injection, treatment effectiveness, postoperative sexual function
MeSH terms
Sildenafil Citrate, Aged, Humans, Erectile Dysfunction, Injections, Male, Middle Aged, Papaverine, Phosphodiesterase Inhibitors, Piperazines, Postoperative Care, Prostatectomy, Prostatic Neoplasms, Purines, Sexual Dysfunction, Physiological, Sulfones, Urination Disorders, Vacuum, Vasodilator Agents, Treatment Failure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review