Cited by 101Sexual function and dysfunction studiesProstate Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentUrinary Bladder and Prostate Research

Back to Baseline: Erectile Function Recovery After Radical Prostatectomy from the Patients' Perspective

Open access
Nelson, Christian J., Scardino, Peter T., Eastham, James A., Mulhall, John P.·2013·The Journal of Sexual Medicine

Abstract

Introduction: A variety of erectile function recovery (EFR) rates are reported post-radical prostatectomy (RP), with some suggesting EFR rates over 90% [1]. Clinical experience suggests that patients view EFR as getting back to their baseline (BTB) erectile functioning (EF) without the use of medication. Aim: This study explores EFR defined as BTB. Method: Men pre-RP and 24 months post-RP completed the Erectile Function Domain (EFD) of the International Index of Erectile Function and one question on phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) use. Men using a PDE5i at baseline were excluded. Main Outcome Measures: At 24 m, “back to baseline” was defined as achieving the baseline EFD score (within 1 point or higher). Analyses included descriptive statistics, chi-square, and logistic regression. Results: One hundred eighty men had an average age at RP of 59 (SD = 7) years. When including men who were using a PDE5i at 24 months, 43% (N = 78, 95% CI: 36–51%) returned BTB. When considering BTB without the use of a PDE5i, 22% (N = 39, 95% CI: 16% to 28%) returned BTB. When focusing on a subset of men with baseline EFD ≥ 24 (N = 132), 36% (N = 47, 95% CI: 28% to 44%) returned BTB at 24 months using a PDE5i and 16% (N = 21, 95% CI: 11% to 23%) without the use of a PDE5i. For this group, there was a significant difference by age (<60 years, 23% vs. ≥60 years, 4%, P < 0.001), which remained a significant predictor (OR = 6.25, 95% CI: 1.88 to 50, P < 0.001) in multivariable analysis. Conclusions: Twenty-two percent of the entire sample and 16% of the men with functional (EFD ≥ 24) baseline erections returned to BTB EF without the use of medication. Only 4% of men who were ≥60 years old with functional erections pre-surgery achieved BTB EF. Although gaining partial EF is also important, men pre-RP should be educated on EFR and the chance of “back to baseline” EF.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jsm.12135

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Only 16% of men who undergo radical prostatectomy regain their pre-surgery level of erectile functioning.

    “In fact, only 16% of men undergoing a RP will regain their pre-surgery level of erectile functioning (6).”

    From Men's experience with penile rehabilitation following radical prostatectomy: a qualitative study with the goal of informing a therapeutic intervention. (2015) · cites this paper as [6]

    The Discussion reports that 16% returned to their pre-surgery erectile function at 24 months, but this figure applies only to men who had functional erections before surgery and recovered without medication. It reports 22% for the total study sample without medication, so 16% should not be stated as the rate for all men undergoing radical prostatectomy. The indexed copy gives no page number for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.92)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 24 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nelson, C. J., Scardino, P. T., Eastham, J. A., & Mulhall, J. P.
Affiliations
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Nelson, Christian J.
Venue
The Journal of Sexual Medicine
Published
2013-06-01
Volume
10
Issue
6
Pages
1636-1643
ISSN
  • 1743-6095 (ISSN-L)
  • 1743-6109
OpenAlex
W1907014307
Cited by
101
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 1
FWCI
6.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Journal of Sexual Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Sidney Kimmel Center for Prostate and Urologic Cancers
  • National Cancer Institute (R21CA149536)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Sexual function and dysfunction studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Urinary Bladder and Prostate Research
Keywords
erectile function recovery, radical prostatectomy, prostate cancer, phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors, International Index of Erectile Function, patient perspectives, age as predictor, erectile dysfunction
MeSH terms
Aged, Humans, Erectile Dysfunction, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Education as Topic, Patients, Penile Erection, Prostatectomy, Prostatic Neoplasms, Surveys and Questionnaires, Time Factors, Chi-Square Distribution, Logistic Models, Odds Ratio, Recovery of Function, Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors

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