Home Browse Does penile rehabilitation have a role in the treatment of erectile...
ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
▬
✚
Review

Does penile rehabilitation have a role in the treatment of erectile dysfunction following radical prostatectomy?

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]
Gideon Blecher1, Khaled Almekaty1,2, Odunayo Kalejaiye
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4065-0801
1, Suks Minhas1
Gideon Blecher1, Khaled Almekaty1,2, Odunayo Kalejaiye
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4065-0801
1, Suks Minhas1
PUBLISHED 31 Oct 2017
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

In men undergoing radical treatment for prostate cancer, erectile function is one of the most important health-related quality-of-life outcomes influencing patient choice in treatment. Penile rehabilitation has emerged as a therapeutic measure to prevent erectile dysfunction and expedite return of erectile function after radical prostatectomy. Penile rehabilitation involves a program designed to increase the likelihood of return to baseline-level erectile function, as opposed to treatment, which implies the therapeutic treatment of symptoms, a key component of post–radical prostatectomy management. Several pathological theories form the basis for rehabilitation, and a plethora of treatments are currently in widespread use. However, whilst there is some evidence supporting the concept of penile rehabilitation from animal studies, randomised controlled trials are contradictory in outcomes. Similarly, urological guidelines are conflicted in terms of recommendations. Furthermore, it is clear that in spite of the lack of evidence for the role of penile rehabilitation, many urologists continue to employ some form of rehabilitation in their patients after radical prostatectomy. This is a significant burden to health resources in public-funded health economies, and no effective cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken to support this practice. Thus, further research is warranted to provide both scientific and clinical evidence for this contemporary practice and the development of preventative strategies in treating erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy.

Keywords

Erectile dysfunction, Radical Prostatectomy, Prostate Cancer, Penile rehabilitation, Urology

Corresponding author: Suks Minhas
Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
Copyright:  © 2017 Blecher G et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).
How to cite: Blecher G, Almekaty K, Kalejaiye O and Minhas S. Does penile rehabilitation have a role in the treatment of erectile dysfunction following radical prostatectomy? [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6(F1000 Faculty Rev):1923 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12066.1) First published: 31 Oct 2017, 6(F1000 Faculty Rev):1923 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12066.1) Latest published: 31 Oct 2017, 6(F1000 Faculty Rev):1923 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12066.1)

Introduction

Erectile dysfunction (ED) is common after many types of urological surgery, including radical prostatectomy (RP). Given that many of these operations are performed in relatively healthy, young and middle-aged men, any subsequent impairment of erectile function (EF) may have significant long-term psychological and functional morbidity1.

RP is perhaps the most common urological procedure affecting EF, although other procedures have been implicated, including Peyronie’s disease surgery, transurethral resection of the prostate, and circumcision2–4.

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer in UK males, and annually over 45,000 cases are diagnosed, whilst over 11,000 men die from this disease5. In recent years, many efforts have been made to minimise the detrimental impact of prostate cancer treatment on sexual function. Whilst there are limited randomised controlled studies in strong support of penile rehabilitation, various strategies have been adopted as preventative measures to reduce the risks of surgery on EF; the mainstays of treatment include oral agents (phosphodiesterase inhibitors), vacuum pump devices, and intracavernosal injections. Other novel treatments, along with the current understanding and advances in the management of ED following RP, will also be discussed in this commentary.

Pathophysiology of erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy

Penile erection is a neurovascular event requiring intact neural and vascular pathways. The pro-erectile neural pathways are derived from the spinal cord segments S2–S4. The pelvic plexus from which the cavernous nerves take their origin innervates the penis. Nitric oxide is produced both from the endothelium lining the corporal sinusoidal spaces and from non-adrenergic non-cholinergic nerves by the enzyme nitric oxide synthase (NOS), which leads to corporal smooth muscle relaxation6. The resultant reduction in intra-cellular calcium levels leads to corpus cavernosal smooth muscle relaxation and initiation of the veno-occlusive mechanism and penile erection7. Stimulation of the sympathetic nerves leads to corporal smooth muscle contraction.

The neurovascular bundle, containing the erectile nerves, courses along the anterolateral aspect of the prostate8. Damage to the cavernous nerves, arterial blood supply, cavernosal disease or veno-occlusive dysfunction may result in ED.

RP can be performed in either open or minimally invasive methods, the latter either purely laparoscopically or with robotic assistance. During RP, mechanical and thermal injury may occur to the neurovascular bundle during the lateral or apical dissection or during excision of the seminal vesicles. Ligation of accessory pudendal/obturator arteries may further impair EF. Other theories for ED after RP include local inflammatory effects, trabecular smooth muscle ischaemia with subsequent apoptosis (leading to a reduction in smooth muscle–to–collagen ratio), and veno-occlusive dysfunction9–12.

The resultant ED appears to result from progressive corporal smooth muscle fibrosis combined with a loss of elasticity13. This process appears to be mediated by various cytokines, including transforming growth factor beta 1, endothelin 1, human tissue kallikrein 1, and reactive oxygen species as well as the Rho-kinase/LIM-kinase/cofilin pathway14–16. In animal models in which the cavernous nerves are injured, there is a reduction in the expression in NOS in both the nerves and endothelium of the penis with an increase in expression of endothelin 117. A number of studies support the concept that phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors(PDE5Is), via their ability to increase cGMP levels, are able to inhibit collagen synthesis by imparting an anti-fibrotic and anti-apoptotic effect18,19 (Figure 1).

b8791c24-88fc-4052-98c4-edd0d574d440_figure1.gif

Figure 1. Pathophysiology of erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy.

ROS, reactive oxygen species; TGF-β1, transforming growth factor beta 1.

Two studies in humans, without controls, have examined the histological changes associated with PDE5Is20,21. In one study20, 21 patients had biopsies of cavernosal muscle following treatment with either 50 or 100 mg of sildenafil for 6 months following prostatectomy. The 100 mg dose arm led to an increase in smooth muscle content from 43% to 57%, but there was no difference for the 50 mg group. The study by Iacono et al.21 examined 21 patients who received 50 mg sildenafil three times per week. There was no change in elastic or connective tissue content.

Predictive factors for ED after RP appear to be related to pre-operative baseline function and patient age and whether (and to what degree) a cavernous nerve-sparing procedure has taken place22,23. In a prospective study of 314 men, men younger than 60 years of age (compared with those older than 65) had EF recovery 3 years after RP of 76% versus 47%, respectively23. The same study demonstrated that full pre-operative potency, versus men with recently diminished EF versus those with impaired erections, had potency recovery rates of 54%, 37% and 22%, respectively. A bilateral versus unilateral versus non–nerve-sparing approach also significantly affected potency rates: 55%, 41% and 21%, respectively.

Evidence of erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy

Advances in our understanding of the anatomy of the neurovascular bundles with advances in surgical technique as described by Walsh et al.24 (that is, the anatomical nerve-sparing RP) have enabled a reduction in the risks of post-operative ED25. However, the challenge for the urological oncologist is to maintain post-operative EF by sparing the cavernous nerves whilst ensuring negative oncological margins. This concept becomes more complicated as the general trend to monitor men with low-risk disease has become more mainstream. In particular, historical studies reporting on the outcomes from RP included those patients with low-risk disease in whom preservation of the neurovascular bundle and hence maintenance of EF was more likely. It is now apparent that a disproportionate number of men with low to intermediate risk have undergone such surgery and as such the reported rates of EF are probably higher than those in more contemporary series. Therefore, it is predicted that the proportion of men with high-risk disease (prostate-specific antigen of more than 20 ng/dL, bilateral disease (pT2c) or greater, and Gleason grade of 8–10) undergoing RP will increase, with a potential rise in ED26. However, nerve sparing in high-risk patients is being pursued27. Thus, will advances in surgical technique ensure good functional outcomes in higher-risk disease, or will we see a potential reduction in the number of nerve-sparing procedures performed and therefore a greater proportion of men with ED?

Regardless of the answers to these questions, the starting point for analysing data on penile rehabilitation is the definition of ED. Unfortunately, there remains significant heterogeneity in the literature in terms of definitions of ED after RP, and a significant number of studies do not clearly state their definitions of ED or return to sexual function. Furthermore, clarity on whether adjunctive treatments such as PDE5Is are used is not uniform. Scoring systems such as Sexual Health Inventory For Men (SHIM) scores, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5), sexual questionnaires, and patient and partner reporting are all prone to inaccuracies, and comparative indices such as return to baseline function are not used.

A meta-analysis in 2009 noted that the ‘overall rate’ of ED after RP was 58%; however, within the 22 included studies, there existed 22 different definitions of EF outcome28. Moreover, reporting on EF after RP is further clouded by variability in the timing of pre-operative assessment of EF, which can significantly affect the ‘accuracy’ of scores; one can imagine that a pre-operative patient who has a recent cancer diagnosis may have fewer sexual thoughts and thus potentially reduced perception of their EF compared with that prior to their diagnosis29. As such, defining and reporting the rate of ED after RP are fraught with problems. Rather than scoring on validated scoring systems (for example, IIEF-5, SHIM or Global Assessment Questionnaire), a ‘return to baseline’ assessment may provide a more realistic measure and comparator of health-related quality-of-life outcomes in this group of patients.

Furthermore, studies often do not report on the effects of multi-modal treatments; that is, patients may receive adjuvant treatments, which may affect EF, including radiotherapy or androgen deprivation. These issues aside, evidence from the literature would suggest that the probabilities of EF (measured as IIEF-6 score of at least 22) at 24, 36 and 48 months were 22%, 32% and 40%, respectively30, and whilst erectile recovery occurred up to 48 months post-operatively, EF appears to remain stable thereafter31.

Rehabilitation techniques

Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors

The introduction of PDE5Is has revolutionised the management of ED. Various pharmacotherapies have been used for penile rehabilitation after RP. However, there are only a limited number of randomised trials exploring the efficacy of PDE5Is in this setting. Whilst trial subjects have had nerve-sparing RP, the exact extent of nerve spare, surgeon volume, or experience is not universally presented and analysed. As discussed previously, the exact mechanism of how PDE5Is may improve long-term EF rates remains unclear, although animal studies indicate a possible neuroprotective effect32,33.

PDE5Is, including sildenafil, tadalafil, avafanil and vardenafil, are oral agents which can be administered as an on-demand treatment for ED. In the non-RP population, there is evidence that low-dose daily regimens may provide better IIEF outcomes compared with the on-demand approach34. There is no clear answer in the RP population regarding daily versus on-demand dosing but several trials attempt to address this question35–39 (Table 1).

Table 1. Randomised trials of oral phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors.

AuthorsYearSubjectsTreatmentMeasureDurationComment
Brock et al.402003440Placebo versus
vardenafil 10 mg,
20 mg 		IIEF-EF Diary
questions
Global Assessment
Question		3 monthsBenefit in severe erectile
dysfunction
Montorsi et al.352008628Placebo versus
vardenafil (5 mg
to 20 mg); nightly
versus on-demand 		IIEF9 months,
2-month washout		On-demand better than nightly,
better than placebo
Padma-Nathan
et al.41		200876Placebo versus
nightly sildenafil
50 mg, 100 mg		IIEF36 weeks,
8-week washout		Premature closing due to lack of
treatment effect. Results after
12 months of follow-up; 4%
of placebo patients regained
spontaneous erection compared
with 27% in treatment arm
Mulhall et al.422013298Avanafil on-demand
versus placebo		Sexual encounter
profile (question 2)
Sexual intercourse
IIEF-EF		3 months
Pavlovich et al.362013100Sildenafil; on-demand
with nightly placebo
versus nightly with
on-demand placebo		Quality-of-life
assessments		12 months,
1-month
washout		No significant differences found.
No sole placebo group
Montorsi et al.372014423Placebo versus
tadalafil; daily versus
on-demand		IIEF-EF
Sexual encounter profile
Penile length		9 months,
6-week washout,
3-month open-
label		Penile length loss reduced by
4.1 mm
Unassisted erectile function not
improved after treatment cessation.
No benefit to tadalafil versus
placebo
Moncada et al.382015423Placebo versus
tadalafil; daily versus
on-demand		IIEF-EF9 months,
6-week washout		IIEF-EF improved most with daily
(29.5%, 23.9%,18.4% with IIEF ≥22)
Kim et al.39201674On-demand sildenafil
with addition of
either nightly
sildenafil or placebo		Rigiscan/IIEF12 months,
1-month
washout		No benefit of additional nightly
dosing to on-demand. No pure
placebo group

IIEF, International Index of Erectile Function; IIEF-EF, International Index of Erectile Function–erectile function domain.

In patients who have undergone RP, the earliest randomised trial, by Brock et al. in 2003, was a placebo-controlled prospective trial examining the use of vardenafil (both 10 and 20 mg doses) with assessments at 3 months40. The authors report an improvement for both dosages, in IIEF-EF, global assessment and diary questions, but only for men with severe ED (IIEF < 11). Limitations included a short follow-up period.

Montorsi et al. evaluated 628 patients for 9 months in the multi-centre REINVENT randomised trial35. The double-blind placebo-controlled trial with a 2-month washout period, compared the efficacy of daily 5 mg tadalfil versus 20 mg on demand. On-demand use of vardenafil was superior to both nightly dosing and placebo, and the proportions of patients with IIEF-EF scores of at least 22 were 48%, 32% and 25%, respectively. However, following the washout period, no statistically significant differences between the treatment arms were noted.

In the same year, Padma-Nathan et al. prematurely ceased their enrolment of patients in a comparative study of nightly sildenafil versus placebo because of a lack of treatment efficacy41. This three-phase trial was structured such that results were observed 12 months following surgery. The authors suggested that 4% of placebo group versus 27% of the sildenafil group described adequate EF following the 8-week washout period41. The authors conclude that, despite not meeting their initial power requirements, nightly sildenafil can improve spontaneous erection rates compared with placebo. (Erection was defined as a combined score of at least 8 for questions 3 and 4 of the IIEF and also an answer of ‘Yes’ to the question ‘Over the past 4 weeks, have your erections been good enough for satisfactory sexual activity?’)

In a study of 298 patients, Mulhall et al. demonstrated a significant benefit of on-demand avanafil with 6.4% of sexual attempts (Sexual Encounter Profile question 3, or SEP3) at 15 minutes or less as successful compared with 4.5% for placebo42. A short duration of follow-up (3 months) and failure to measure EF after a washout period are criticisms of this trial.

In contrast, the study by Pavlovich et al. showed no differences in EF after 12 months; their design, however, did not include an adequate placebo group36. A larger study by Montorsi et al. also failed to show a benefit after treatment cessation37. Fifty centres participated in this multi-centre trial, in which 423 patients were randomly assigned to placebo or tadalafil and which had both on-demand 20 mg and nightly 5 mg arms. However, there was a reduction in loss of penile length in the daily tadalafil group: 2.2 mm in the daily compared with 7.9 mm in on-demand and 6.3 mm in placebo groups.

The most recent trial, of 74 patients by Kim et al., examined both subjective assessment of EF as well as nocturnal penile tumescence with Rigiscan (GoTop Medical, Saint Paul, MN, USA)39. After 12-month treatment with on-demand sildenafil (100 mg), patients received either nightly sildenafil or placebo. Despite a unique method of EF assessment, there was no pure-placebo arm. Their results indicated no benefit of nightly dosing compared with on-demand treatment.

Thus, overall, the literature on the role of PDE5Is in the context of penile rehabilitation is contradictory. It is interesting that despite the absence of definitive clinical evidence for penile rehabilitation, clinicians often use PDE5Is for penile rehabilitation43, but questions remain as to the efficacy, duration and cost utility of such treatment.

Intracavernosal injections

Intracavernosal injections are used as second-line agents for the treatment of ED, most commonly alprostadil, which is prostaglandin E1 (PGE1). PGE1 lowers intra-cellular calcium via cyclic GMP, leading to smooth muscle relaxation. Other agents include phentolamine (alpha antagonist), papaverine (increases cAMP) and aviptadil. The major disadvantage is pain associated with the injection44, whilst the benefit is pharmacological efficacy despite a non–nerve-sparing procedure. There are only a few randomised prospective studies assessing the role of intracavernosal injections as a form of penile rehabilitation. The randomised trial by Montorsi et al. 20 years ago, though of relatively short follow-up and small numbers (n = 30), demonstrated an improved EF rate with three weekly injections of intracavernosal alprostadil45. Although the trial had no placebo arm and was non-blinded, a further 132 patients were randomly assigned to oral sildenafil with and without intracavernosal alprostadil three times a week in a study by Mulhall et al.46. This study demonstrated that after 18 months, use of alprostadil led to a spontaneous erection rate of 53% versus 19% for those taking sildenafil only46. A small (n = 22) non-placebo study by Nandipati et al.47 used either intracavernosal alprostadil or Trimix (PGE1, papaverine and phentolamine) with oral sildenafil versus sildenafil alone. Eleven out of 22 (50%) reported return of spontaneous erections at a mean of 6 months but none sufficient for intercourse. With treatment, sildenafil alone did not improve the IIEF compared with baseline post-operatively, whereas injections or combination injections with sildenafil did improve the IIEF. All four subjects using Trimix achieved erections sufficient for intercourse without sildenafil. Importantly, these results are not ‘unaided’ IIEF scores and it is not clear that study participants were blinded to the treatments. Although these studies form the basis of our current understanding, they are limited by small numbers and lack of placebo control, and some are non-randomised, and results do not include return to baseline figures—an important measure of EF after RP.

Intraurethral alprostadil

Intraurethral alprostadil is available as a suppository, although both urethral discomfort and questionable efficacy are factors which may influence clinician prescribing. This treatment is often plagued by high dropout rates. The International Consultation for Sexual Medicine (ICSM) recommendations48 suggest that it has a role in the management of ED after RP. There is only one trial assessing its role in the context of penile rehabilitation after RP49. Raina et al. conducted a randomised, placebo-controlled, prospective trial of 91 patients who received three doses per week for six months49. Seventy-four percent in the active arm versus 37% regained erections sufficient for intercourse; however, most men (71%) who regained their EF were dissatisfied and sought alternative treatments. A high dropout rate of 32% was noted. No intention-to-treat analysis was performed, thus tainting the analysis. A randomised prospective trial by McCullough et al. investigated intra-urethral alprostadil versus oral sildenafil50. One hundred thirty-nine men were assessed following 9 months of treatment; no statistical difference was found in IIEF or intercourse success rates50.

Alprostadil is also available as a topical application; however, no prospective randomised trials in relation to penile rehabilitation are currently available (Table 2 and Table 3).

Table 2. Randomised trials of intracavernosal alprostadil.

AuthorsYearSubjectsTreatmentMeasureFollow-upComments
Montorsi et al.45199730IC alprostadil versus
placebo		Sexual history
Doppler US Nocturnal
polisomnograph		6 months67% versus 20% recovery of erectile
function
Non-blinded
Mulhall et al.462005132Sildenafil versus
sildenafil + IC
alprostadil		IIEF18 months53% versus 19% spontaneous
erections. Higher IIEF with treatment
Nandipati et al.47200622IC alprostadil or
Trimix + sildenafil
versus sildenafil		SHIM
Penile Doppler		12 monthsSmall study. No placebo.
Not blinded.

IC, intracavernosal; IIEF, International Index of Erectile Function; SHIM, Sexual Health Inventory For Men.

Table 3. Randomised trials of vacuum erection device.

AuthorsYearSubjectsTreatmentMeasureFollow-upComments
Engel55201123Tadalafil three times per
week with VED versus
tadalafil alone		IIEF
Penile Hardness
Scale
Sexual questionnaire		12 monthsLow patient numbers
Raina et al.542006109VED versus no treatmentSHIM
Compliance
Change in penile
length
Return of natural
erection
Intercourse ability		9 months17% had erections sufficient
for intercourse with VED
versus 11%

18% discontinued treatment

IIEF, International Index of Erectile Function; SHIM, Sexual Health Inventory For Men; VED, vacuum erection device.

Vacuum erection device

The vacuum erection device (VED) is a recognised therapeutic option for managing ED; however, data relating to its role in rehabilitation after RP are limited. VED increases glanular and corporal oximetry51, and animal studies suggest that the mechanism of action may relate to the anti-hypoxic, anti-apoptotic and anti-fibrotic effects via reduced hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha and transforming growth factor beta 152. A small pilot study in 2007 randomly assigned 28 men to a VED daily for 5 months, for 10 minutes a day, versus no treatment. At 6 months, IIEF scores were higher in the VED group: 12.4 versus 3.053. Raina et al. analysed 109 patients who received VEDs versus control (no erectogenic treatment) for 9 months after prostatectomy54. Return of natural erections was reported in 32% in the VED group and in 37% of the controls. Though lacking a control group, Engel compared 23 men taking tadalafil versus tadalafil plus VED for 12 months55. IIEF was higher for the combination group at 6, 9 and 12 months, as was ability to penetrate vaginally. However, the low power of this study is a major limitation. Importantly, these studies are weakened by selection bias and lack of blinding and randomisation.

Timing of rehabilitation

The majority of studies start treatment within the first four weeks post-operatively. Mulhall et al.56 performed a case review of 84 patients who received PDE5Is and intracavernosal alprostadil (on-demand) within or after 6 months after RP. There was a difference of IIEF EF scores: 22 versus 16 in favour of early treatment; however, this level 4 evidence article is potentially exposed to selection bias. No prospective randomised trials are available to answer this contentious issue.

The duration of rehabilitation is another unanswered question. Yiou et al. retrospectively assessed 75 patients who received intracavernosal alprostadil for 24 months; only those patients who did not respond to PDE5I at 12 months continued injection treatment57. No significant improvement in spontaneous erections was noted between 12 and 24 months. Thus, although practitioners may suggest treatment for variable durations, no evidence exists to counsel patients on this important aspect of pharmacotherapy.

Novel therapies - clinical

Penile vibratory stimulation

This technique has been employed for patients with and without spinal cord injury to achieve erection but also for ejaculation. There exist a number of devices, including the Vibererect device (Reflexonic, Chambersburg, PA, USA) and Ferticare vibrator (Multicept, Frederiksberg, Denmark), that stimulate the pudendal nerve to causes a reflex parasympathetic response, resulting in erection. Fode et al. performed a randomised prospective controlled trial of penile vibratory stimulation versus control in 68 patients following nerve-sparing RP58. At 12 months, there was a trend towards improved IIEF-5 scores (median of 18 versus 7.5); however, this result did not reach statistical significance between treatments58. Vibratory stimulators are not currently recommended for routine treatment of ED by either the European Association of Urology (EAU) Guidelines or the ICSM.

Novel therapies - preclinical

Sonic Hedgehog protein

This protein is a signal pathway protein involved in organ development59–61. Studies have analysed its role in neural regeneration. It appears that application of Sonic Hedgehog (SHH) in the immediate period of nerve damage (in rat models) may positively affect neural regeneration62. In a recent study in a rat model with bilateral cavernous nerve injury, nanofiber hydrogel was used to deliver SHH to the injury site. SHH was shown to prevent neuronal and surrounding supportive glial cell degeneration63 and thus may be of value in the setting of prostatectomy and ED prevention.

Gene therapy

A variety of options are being explored in rat models for gene therapy in ED. This requires injection of either viral or non-viral vector, containing the specific therapy64. Examples include upregulation of NOS (endothelial NOS)65, growth factors (for example, neurotrophin-366, glial cell–derived neurotrophic factor67, brain-derived neurotrophic factor67, and vascular endothelial derived growth factor68), or modulation of potassium channels via Maxi-K or BK69. Rat model trials have demonstrated a prevention of age-related decrease in intra-corporal pressures following cavernous nerve stimulation after an injection of pcDNA/hSlo, which increases the expression of Maxi-K channels70.

COX-2-10aa-PGIS is a protein involved in the production of prostacyclin, a potent smooth muscle relaxant, and has been investigated in rat models71. Rats undergoing COX-2-10aa-PGIS gene therapy demonstrated improved EF as measured by intracavernosal pressure following bilateral cavernous nerve crush. In a similar attempt to increase intracavernosal prostacyclin, transfection of SuperEnzyme (a recently engineered protein) may be a potential option for gene therapy in penile rehabilitation72.

Stem cell therapy

Stem cell treatment is often looked upon as a holy grail of future medical treatments. In 2004, a study in rat models investigated injection of neural embryonic stem cells into the pelvic ganglia; those with the injections had significantly higher intracavernosal pressures73. There are over 20 other studies of mesenchymal stem cell injections in rat models, and there was improvement in EF in many of these74. A human trial was performed by Yiou et al. whereby 12 patients with localised prostate cancer were injected autologous bone marrow mononuclear cells75. After 6 months, the treatment group showed significantly improved IIEF-EF (17.4 ± 8.9 versus 7.3 ± 4.5) and erection hardness (2.6 ± 1.1 versus 1.3 ± 0.8) scores. The authors rightly note that these are early data and need further phase 2 clinical trials.

Penile implants

Though an end-stage treatment for ED rather than a rehabilitation tool, penile implant is worth mentioning. There exist both three-piece inflatable as well as malleable devices to provide support and rigidity for penetrative intercourse. For inflatable devices, a reservoir is placed in retroperitoneal, retropubic or ectopic positions. Unfortunately, complicating issues such as floppy glans, lack of glans engorgement, and changes in sensation will never enable this option to fully replicate natural erections and clearly it is a non-reversible step. Thus, though a functional end-stage option for ED, it cannot be part of the armamentarium of short-term treatment to restore baseline EF.

Guidelines

Whilst there are several randomised studies on the subject of penile rehabilitation, much of the data outcomes are complicated by conflicting results and relatively short follow-up. In this context, what do international guidelines currently recommend in terms of penile rehabilitation? The grade A EAU recommendation states that ‘pro-erectile treatments have to be given at the earliest opportunity after RP’76. This is seemingly in relation to treating ED; however, there is no explicit statement in relation to rehabilitation. Of note, the ICSM recommendations state that ‘there are conflicting data as to whether penile rehabilitation with phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors improves recovery of spontaneous erections’ (level of evidence 1, grade A). The American Urology Association do not have a clear statement in relation to rehabilitation other than that ‘The applicability of PDE5 inhibitors after RP needs to be characterized’77. Thus, even contemporary guideline recommendations seem conflicting but indicate a need for further studies.

In this context, a cost-benefit assessment is important to consider given the widespread use of penile rehabilitation. The benefit of rehabilitation—that is, ability to subsequently achieve unassisted erection or return to baseline function—seems unclear.

Cost analysis

It can be projected that the cost of treatment of ED related to RP will increase. Prostate cancer is the commonest cancer in UK males, and over 45,000 cases are diagnosed each year; this is projected to increase to over 75,000 in 203578. With almost one tenth of these patients undergoing major surgery for their cancer79 and 56% of these men undergoing bilateral nerve-sparing and up to 66% non–nerve-sparing operations80, the overall number of men potentially requiring ED treatment or rehabilitation after RP is 4,500 per year in the UK. Over a period of years, this number (cumulative incidence) becomes much more significant and almost rivals the number of UK men being prescribed PDE5Is for ED not related to prostate surgery81. Given that more patients with high-risk disease will undergo radical (and likely non–nerve-sparing) surgery, there will be an increase in the number of men who receive PDE5is, which will not be efficacious or cost-effective.

Conclusions

Penile rehabilitation has been widely adopted despite a lack of high-level evidence indicating a definitive and long-term benefit. Several studies do exist, but these currently seem conflicting and have methodological limitations. Current treatments include oral PDE5Is, intracavernosal topical or intra-urethral alprostadil, and vacuum erectile devices, whilst experimental treatments are under development. Penile rehabilitation is a significant burden to health resources in public-funded health economies, and no effective cost-benefit analysis has been undertaken to support this practice. Thus, further research is warranted to provide both scientific and clinical evidence for this contemporary practice and the development of preventative strategies in treating ED after RP.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

  • 1.  Köhler N, Friedrich M, Gansera L, et al.: Psychological distress and adjustment to disease in patients before and after radical prostatectomy. Results of a prospective multi-centre study. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2014; 23(6): 795–802. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 2.  Fink KS, Carson CC, DeVellis RF: Adult circumcision outcomes study: effect on erectile function, penile sensitivity, sexual activity and satisfaction. J Urol. 2002; 167(5): 2113–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 3.  Chung A, Woo HH: Preservation of sexual function when relieving benign prostatic obstruction surgically: can a trade-off be considered? Curr Opin Urol. 2016; 26(1): 42–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
  • 4.  El-Sakka AI, Lue TF: Venous grafting for the correction of penile curvature in Peyronie's disease. Curr Opin Urol. 1998; 8(6): 541–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 5.  UK, N.C.I.N.a.C.R: Prostate Cancer Statistics. 2015 June 2017. Reference Source
  • 6.  Kim N, Vardi Y, Padma-Nathan H, et al.: Oxygen tension regulates the nitric oxide pathway. Physiological role in penile erection. J Clin Invest. 1993; 91(2): 437–42. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 7.  Van Ahlen H, Kliesch S: Disorders of Erection, Cohabitation, and Ejaculation. In Andrology. Nieschlag E, Behre HM, Nieschlag S, Editor. Springer: Heidelberg. 2010; 279–321. Publisher Full Text
  • 8.  Walz J, Graefen M, Huland H: Surgical anatomy of the prostate in the era of radical robotic prostatectomy. Curr Opin Urol. 2011; 21(3): 173–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 9.  Mulhall JP, Bella AJ, Briganti A, et al.: Erectile function rehabilitation in the radical prostatectomy patient. J Sex Med. 2010; 7(4 Pt 2): 1687–98. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 10.  Chung E, Brock G: Sexual rehabilitation and cancer survivorship: a state of art review of current literature and management strategies in male sexual dysfunction among prostate cancer survivors. J Sex Med. 2013; 10 Suppl 1: 102–11. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 11.  Salonia A, Burnett AL, Graefen M, et al.: Prevention and management of postprostatectomy sexual dysfunctions part 2: recovery and preservation of erectile function, sexual desire, and orgasmic function. Eur Urol. 2012; 62(2): 273–86. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 12.  Raina R, Pahlajani G, Agarwal A, et al.: Early penile rehabilitation following radical prostatectomy: Cleveland clinic experience. Int J Impot Res. 2008; 20(2): 121–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 13.  Iacono F, Giannella R, Somma P, et al.: Histological alterations in cavernous tissue after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2005; 173(5): 1673–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 14.  Cui K, Luan Y, Zhuan L, et al.: Reduced corporal fibrosis to protect erectile function by inhibiting the Rho-kinase/LIM-kinase/cofilin pathway in the aged transgenic rat harboring human tissue kallikrein 1. Asian J Androl. 2017; 19(1): 67–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
  • 15.  Seftel AD, Maclennan GT, Chen ZJ, et al.: Loss of TGFbeta, Apoptosis, and Bcl-2 in Erectile Dysfunction and Upregulation of p53 and HIF-1alpha in Diabetes-Associated Erectile Dysfunction. Mol Urol. 1999; 3(2): 103–107. PubMed Abstract
  • 16.  Moreland RB, Traish A, McMillin MA, et al.: PGE1 suppresses the induction of collagen synthesis by transforming growth factor-beta 1 in human corpus cavernosum smooth muscle. J Urol. 1995; 153(3 Pt 1): 826–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 17.  Carrier S, Zvara P, Nunes L, et al.: Regeneration of nitric oxide synthase-containing nerves after cavernous nerve neurotomy in the rat. J Urol. 1995; 153(5): 1722–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 18.  Valente EG, Vernet D, Ferrini MG, et al.: L-arginine and phosphodiesterase (PDE) inhibitors counteract fibrosis in the Peyronie's fibrotic plaque and related fibroblast cultures. Nitric Oxide. 2003; 9(4): 229–44. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 19.  Ferrini MG, Kovanecz I, Nolazco G, et al.: Effects of long-term vardenafil treatment on the development of fibrotic plaques in a rat model of Peyronie's disease. BJU Int. 2006; 97(3): 625–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 20.  Schwartz EJ, Wong P, Graydon RJ: Sildenafil preserves intracorporeal smooth muscle after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2004; 171(2 Pt 1): 771–4. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 21.  Iacono F, Prezioso D, Somma P, et al.: Histopathologically proven prevention of post-prostatectomy cavernosal fibrosis with sildenafil. Urol Int. 2008; 80(3): 249–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 22.  Kumar A, Samavedi S, Bates AS, et al.: Age stratified comparative analysis of perioperative, functional and oncologic outcomes in patients after robot assisted radical prostatectomy--A propensity score matched study. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2015; 41(7): 837–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
  • 23.  Rabbani F, Stapleto AM, Kattan MW, et al.: Factors predicting recovery of erections after radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2000; 164(6): 1929–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 24.  Walsh PC, Lepor H, Eggleston JC: Radical prostatectomy with preservation of sexual function: anatomical and pathological considerations. Prostate. 1983; 4(5): 473–85. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 25.  Robinson JW, Moritz S, Fung T: Meta-analysis of rates of erectile function after treatment of localized prostate carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2002; 54(4): 1063–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 26.  Sridhar AN, Cathcart PJ, Yap T, et al.: Recovery of Baseline Erectile Function in Men Following Radical Prostatectomy for High-Risk Prostate Cancer: A Prospective Analysis Using Validated Measures. J Sex Med. 2016; 13(3): 435–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 27.  Lavery HJ, Nabizada-Pace F, Carlucci JR, et al.: Nerve-sparing robotic prostatectomy in preoperatively high-risk patients is safe and efficacious. Urol Oncol. 2012; 30(1): 26–32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 28.  Tal R, Alphs HH, Krebs P, et al.: Erectile function recovery rate after radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis. J Sex Med. 2009; 6(9): 2538–46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 29.  Salonia A, Zanni G, Gallina A, et al.: Baseline potency in candidates for bilateral nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2006; 50(2): 360–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 30.  Lee JK, Assel M, Thong AE, et al.: Unexpected Long-term Improvements in Urinary and Erectile Function in a Large Cohort of Men with Self-reported Outcomes Following Radical Prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2015; 68(5): 899–905. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
  • 31.  Sivarajan G, Prabhu V, Taksler GB, et al.: Ten-year outcomes of sexual function after radical prostatectomy: results of a prospective longitudinal study. Eur Urol. 2014; 65(1): 58–65. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 32.  Hlaing SM, Garcia LA, Kovanecz I, et al.: Sildenafil promotes neuroprotection of the pelvic ganglia neurones after bilateral cavernosal nerve resection in the rat. BJU Int. 2013; 111(1): 159–70. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 33.  Salmasi A, Lee GT, Patel N, et al.: Off-Target Effect of Sildenafil on Postsurgical Erectile Dysfunction: Alternate Pathways and Localized Delivery System. J Sex Med. 2016; 13(12): 1834–1843. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
  • 34.  McMahon C: Comparison of efficacy, safety, and tolerability of on-demand tadalafil and daily dosed tadalafil for the treatment of erectile dysfunction. J Sex Med. 2005; 2(3): 415–25; discussion 425–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 35.  Montorsi F, Brock G, Lee J, et al.: Effect of nightly versus on-demand vardenafil on recovery of erectile function in men following bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2008; 54(4): 924–31. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
  • 36.  Pavlovich CP, Levinson AW, Su LM, et al.: Nightly vs on-demand sildenafil for penile rehabilitation after minimally invasive nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: results of a randomized double-blind trial with placebo. BJU Int. 2013; 112(6): 844–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 37.  Montorsi F, Brock G, Stolzenburg JU, et al.: Effects of tadalafil treatment on erectile function recovery following bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: a randomised placebo-controlled study (REACTT). Eur Urol. 2014; 65(3): 587–96. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
  • 38.  Moncada I, de Bethencourt FR, Lledó-García E, et al.: Effects of tadalafil once daily or on demand versus placebo on time to recovery of erectile function in patients after bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. World J Urol. 2015; 33(7): 1031–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
  • 39.  Kim DJ, Hawksworth DJ, Hurwitz LM, et al.: A prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of on-Demand vs. nightly sildenafil citrate as assessed by Rigiscan and the international index of erectile function. Andrology. 2016; 4(1): 27–32. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
  • 40.  Brock G, Nehra A, Lipshultz LI, et al.: Safety and efficacy of vardenafil for the treatment of men with erectile dysfunction after radical retropubic prostatectomy. J Urol. 2003; 170(4 Pt 1): 1278–83. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 41.  Padma-Nathan H, McCullough AR, Levine LA, et al.: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of postoperative nightly sildenafil citrate for the prevention of erectile dysfunction after bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Int J Impot Res. 2008; 20(5): 479–86. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 42.  Mulhall JP, Burnett AL, Wang R, et al.: A phase 3, placebo controlled study of the safety and efficacy of avanafil for the treatment of erectile dysfunction after nerve sparing radical prostatectomy. J Urol. 2013; 189(6): 2229–36. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 43.  Teloken P, Mesquita G, Montorsi F, et al.: Post-radical prostatectomy pharmacological penile rehabilitation: practice patterns among the international society for sexual medicine practitioners. J Sex Med. 2009; 6(7): 2032–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 44.  Yiou R, Cunin P, de la Taille A, et al.: Sexual rehabilitation and penile pain associated with intracavernous alprostadil after radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med. 2011; 8(2): 575–82. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 45.  Montorsi F, Guazzoni G, Strambi LF, et al.: Recovery of spontaneous erectile function after nerve-sparing radical retropubic prostatectomy with and without early intracavernous injections of alprostadil: results of a prospective, randomized trial. J Urol. 1997; 158(4): 1408–10. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 46.  Mulhall J, Land S, Parker M, et al.: The use of an erectogenic pharmacotherapy regimen following radical prostatectomy improves recovery of spontaneous erectile function. J Sex Med. 2005; 2(4): 532–40; discussion 540–2. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 47.  Nandipati K, Raina R, Agarwal A, et al.: Early combination therapy: intracavernosal injections and sildenafil following radical prostatectomy increases sexual activity and the return of natural erections. Int J Impot Res. 2006; 18(5): 446–51. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 48.  Hatzimouratidis K, Salonia A, Adaikan G, et al.: Pharmacotherapy for Erectile Dysfunction: Recommendations From the Fourth International Consultation for Sexual Medicine (ICSM 2015). J Sex Med. 2016; 13(4): 465–88. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
  • 49.  Raina R, Pahlajani G, Agarwal A, et al.: The early use of transurethral alprostadil after radical prostatectomy potentially facilitates an earlier return of erectile function and successful sexual activity. BJU Int. 2007; 100(6): 1317–21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 50.  McCullough AR, Hellstrom WG, Wang R, et al.: Recovery of erectile function after nerve sparing radical prostatectomy and penile rehabilitation with nightly intraurethral alprostadil versus sildenafil citrate. J Urol. 2010; 183(6): 2451–6. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 51.  Welliver RC Jr, Mechlin C, Goodwin B, et al.: A pilot study to determine penile oxygen saturation before and after vacuum therapy in patients with erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy. J Sex Med. 2014; 11(4): 1071–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
  • 52.  Yuan J, Lin H, Li P, et al.: Molecular mechanisms of vacuum therapy in penile rehabilitation: a novel animal study. Eur Urol. 2010; 58(5): 773–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 53.  Köhler TS, Pedro R, Hendlin K, et al.: A pilot study on the early use of the vacuum erection device after radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2007; 100(4): 858–62. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 54.  Raina R, Agarwal A, Ausmundson S, et al.: Early use of vacuum constriction device following radical prostatectomy facilitates early sexual activity and potentially earlier return of erectile function. Int J Impot Res. 2006; 18(1): 77–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 55.  Engel JD: Effect on sexual function of a vacuum erection device post-prostatectomy. Can J Urol. 2011; 18(3): 5721–5. PubMed Abstract | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
  • 56.  Mulhall JP, Parker M, Waters BW, et al.: The timing of penile rehabilitation after bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy affects the recovery of erectile function. BJU Int. 2010; 105(1): 37–41. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 57.  Yiou R, Bütow Z, Parisot J, et al.: Is it worth continuing sexual rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy with intracavernous injection of alprostadil for more than 1 year? Sex Med. 2015; 3(1): 42–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
  • 58.  Fode M, Borre M, Ohl DA, et al.: Penile vibratory stimulation in the recovery of urinary continence and erectile function after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: a randomized, controlled trial. BJU Int. 2014; 114(1): 111–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 59.  Chiang C, Litingtung Y, Lee E, et al.: Cyclopia and defective axial patterning in mice lacking Sonic hedgehog gene function. Nature. 1996; 383(6599): 407–13. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 60.  Roberts DJ, Johnson RL, Burke AC, et al.: Sonic hedgehog is an endodermal signal inducing Bmp-4 and Hox genes during induction and regionalization of the chick hindgut. Development. 1995; 121(10): 3163–74. PubMed Abstract
  • 61.  Chiang C, Litingtung Y, Harris MP, et al.: Manifestation of the limb prepattern: limb development in the absence of sonic hedgehog function. Dev Biol. 2001; 236(2): 421–35. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 62.  Angeloni N, Bond CW, Harrington D, et al.: Sonic hedgehog is neuroprotective in the cavernous nerve with crush injury. J Sex Med. 2013; 10(5): 1240–50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 63.  Choe S, Bond CW, Harrington DA, et al.: Peptide amphiphile nanofiber hydrogel delivery of sonic hedgehog protein to the cavernous nerve to promote regeneration and prevent erectile dysfunction. Nanomedicine. 2017; 13(1): 95–101. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
  • 64.  Yoshimura N, Kato R, Chancellor MB, et al.: Gene therapy as future treatment of erectile dysfunction. Expert Opin Biol Ther. 2010; 10(9): 1305–14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 65.  Champion HC, Bivalacqua TJ, Hyman AL, et al.: Gene transfer of endothelial nitric oxide synthase to the penis augments erectile responses in the aged rat. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999; 96(20): 11648–52. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
  • 66.  Lin G, Chen KC, Hsieh PS, et al.: Neurotrophic effects of vascular endothelial growth factor and neurotrophins on cultured major pelvic ganglia. BJU Int. 2003; 92(6): 631–5. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 67.  Laurikainen A, Hiltunen JO, Vanhatalo S, et al.: Glial cell line-derived neurotrophic factor is expressed in penis of adult rat and retrogradely transported in penile parasympathetic and sensory nerves. Cell Tissue Res. 2000; 302(3): 321–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 68.  Dall'Era JE, Meacham RB, Mills JN, et al.: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) gene therapy using a nonviral gene delivery system improves erectile function in a diabetic rat model. Int J Impot Res. 2008; 20(3): 307–14. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 69.  Spektor M, Rodriguez R, Rosenbaum RS, et al.: Potassium channels and human corporeal smooth muscle cell tone: further evidence of the physiological relevance of the Maxi-K channel subtype to the regulation of human corporeal smooth muscle tone in vitro. J Urol. 2002; 167(6): 2628–35. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 70.  Melman A, Zhao W, Davies KP, et al.: The successful long-term treatment of age related erectile dysfunction with hSlo cDNA in rats in vivo. J Urol. 2003; 170(1): 285–90. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 71.  Lin H, Yuan J, Ruan KH, et al.: COX-2-10aa-PGIS gene therapy improves erectile function in rats after cavernous nerve injury. J Sex Med. 2013; 10(6): 1476–87. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
  • 72.  Yuan J, Westney OL, Ruan KH, et al.: A new strategy, SuperEnzyme gene therapy in penile rehabilitation. J Sex Med. 2009; 6 Suppl 3: 328–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 73.  Bochinski D, Lin GT, Nunes L, et al.: The effect of neural embryonic stem cell therapy in a rat model of cavernosal nerve injury. BJU Int. 2004; 94(6): 904–9. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 74.  Mangir N, Türkeri L: Stem cell therapies in post-prostatectomy erectile dysfunction: a critical review. Can J Urol. 2017; 24(1): 8609–8619. PubMed Abstract | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
  • 75.  Yiou R, Hamidou L, Birebent B, et al.: Safety of Intracavernous Bone Marrow-Mononuclear Cells for Postradical Prostatectomy Erectile Dysfunction: An Open Dose-Escalation Pilot Study. Eur Urol. 2016; 69(6): 988–91. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
  • 76.  Hatzimouratidis K, Eardley I, Giuliano F, et al.: Guidelines on Male Sexual Dysfunction: Erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation. European Association of Urology. 2014; 27. Reference Source
  • 77.  Montague DK, Jarow JP, Broderick GA, et al.: Erectile Dysfunction: The Management of Erectile Dysfunction: An Update. 2011, American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. 2005; 28. Reference Source
  • 78.  Smittenaar CR, Petersen KA, Stewart K, et al.: Cancer incidence and mortality projections in the UK until 2035. Br J Cancer. 2016; 115(9): 1147–1155. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text | Faculty Opinions Recommendation
  • 79.  UK, N.C.I.N.a.C.R: Major resections by cancer site, in England; 2006 to 2010. Workbook (Version 2.0 - reissued June 2015). NCIN: London. 2015. Reference Source
  • 80.  Stanford JL, Feng Z, Hamilton AD, et al.: Urinary and sexual function after radical prostatectomy for clinically localized prostate cancer: the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Study. JAMA. 2000; 283(3): 354–60. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
  • 81.  Department of Health: Proposed Changes to NHS Availability of Erectile Dysfunction Treatments. 2013. Reference Source

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 31 Oct 2017
Comment
Author details Author details
Competing interests
Grant information
Article Versions (1)
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
 - -
Citations
SEE MORE DETAILS
CITE
how to cite this article
Blecher G, Almekaty K, Kalejaiye O and Minhas S. Does penile rehabilitation have a role in the treatment of erectile dysfunction following radical prostatectomy? [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6(F1000 Faculty Rev):1923 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.12066.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 31 Oct 2017
Views
0
Cite
Reviewer Report 31 Oct 2017
Ates Kadıoğlu, Section of Andrology, Department of Urology, Istanbul University, Istanbul School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey 
Approved
VIEWS 0
https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.13054.r27161
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Kadıoğlu A. Reviewer Report For: Does penile rehabilitation have a role in the treatment of erectile dysfunction following radical prostatectomy? [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6(F1000 Faculty Rev):1923 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.13054.r27161)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1923/v1#referee-response-27161
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Report a concern
Views
0
Cite
Reviewer Report 31 Oct 2017
Arthur Burnett, Department of Urology, The James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland, 21287-2411, USA 
Approved
VIEWS 0
https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.13054.r27162
I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Burnett A. Reviewer Report For: Does penile rehabilitation have a role in the treatment of erectile dysfunction following radical prostatectomy? [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2017, 6(F1000 Faculty Rev):1923 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.13054.r27162)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://f1000research.com/articles/6-1923/v1#referee-response-27162
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 31 Oct 2017
Comment

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved
The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved
Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Reviewer Reports

Invited Reviewers
1 2
Version 1
31 Oct 17 		read read
  1. Arthur Burnett, The Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions, Baltimore, USA
  2. Ates Kadıoğlu, Istanbul University, Istanbul School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment
Sign up for content alerts

Browse by related subjects

    keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports
    keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports
    Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
    Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
    Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
    Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
    Sign In
    If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

    The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
    Email address not valid, please try again

    You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

    To sign in, please click here.

    If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

    You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

    To sign in, please click here.

    If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

    Code not correct, please try again
    Email us for further assistance.
    Server error, please try again.