Search

Introduction Sexual dysfunction is common in patients after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer. Aim To provide the International Consultation for Sexual Medicine (ICSM) 2015 recommendations concerning prevention and management strategies for post-RP erectile function impairment in terms of preoperative patient characteristics and intraoperative factors that could influence erectile function recovery. Methods A literature search was performed using Google and PubMed databases for English-language original and review articles published up to August 2016. Main Outcome Measures Levels of evidence (LEs) and grades of recommendations (GRs) based on a thorough analysis of the literature and committee consensus. Results Nine recommendations are provided by the ICSM 2015 committee on sexual rehabilitation after RP. Recommendation 1 states that clinicians should discuss the occurrence of postsurgical erectile dysfunction (temporary or permanent) with every candidate for RP (expert opinion, clinical principle). Recommendation 2 states that validated instruments for assessing erectile function recovery such as the International Index of Erectile Function and Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite questionnaires are available to monitor EF recovery after RP (LE = 1, GR = A). Recommendation 3 states there is insufficient evidence that a specific surgical technique (open vs laparoscopic vs robot-assisted radical prostatectomy) promotes better results in postoperative EF recovery (LE = 2, GR = C). Recommendation 4 states that recognized predictors of EF recovery include but are not limited to younger age, preoperative EF, and bilateral nerve-sparing surgery (LE = 2, GR = B). Recommendation 5 states that patients should be informed about key elements of the pathophysiology of postoperative erectile dysfunction, such as nerve injury and cavernous venous leak (expert opinion, clinical principle). Conclusions This article discusses Recommendations 1 to 5 of the ICSM 2015 committee on sexual rehabilitation after RP. Salonia A, Adaikan G, Buvat J, et al. Sexual Rehabilitation After Treatment for Prostate Cancer—Part 1: Recommendations From the Fourth International Consultation for Sexual Medicine (ICSM 2015). J Sex Med 2017;14:285–296. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Sexual dysfunction is common in patients after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer. Aim To provide the International Consultation for Sexual Medicine (ICSM) 2015 recommendations concerning management strategies for post-RP erectile function impairment and to analyze post-RP sexual dysfunction other than erectile dysfunction. Methods A literature search was performed using Google and PubMed database for English-language original and review articles published up to August 2016. Main Outcome Measures Levels of evidence (LEs) and grades of recommendations (GRs) are provided based on a thorough analysis of the literature and committee consensus. Results Nine recommendations are provided by the ICSM 2015 committee on sexual rehabilitation after RP. Recommendation 6 states that the recovery of postoperative erectile function can take several years (LE = 2, GR = C). Recommendation 7 states there are conflicting data as to whether penile rehabilitation with phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors improves recovery of spontaneous erections (LE = 1, GR = A). Recommendation 8 states that the data are inadequate to support any specific regimen as optimal for penile rehabilitation (LE = 3, GR = C). Recommendation 9 states that men undergoing RP (any technique) are at risk of sexual changes other than erectile dysfunction, including decreased libido, changes in orgasm, anejaculation, Peyronie-like disease, and changes in penile size (LE = 2, GR = B). Conclusion This article discusses Recommendations 6 to 9 of the ICSM 2015 committee on sexual rehabilitation after RP. Salonia A, Adaikan G, Buvat J, et al. Sexual Rehabilitation After Treatment For Prostate Cancer–Part 2: Recommendations From the Fourth International Consultation for Sexual Medicine (ICSM 2015). J Sex Med 2017;14:297–315. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]