Erectile Recovery After Radical Pelvic Surgery: Methodological Challenges and Recommendations for Data Reporting. Issue 1 (24th October 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Capogrosso, Paolo; Pozzi, Edoardo Pietro; Celentano, Valerio; Sanchez-Salas, Rafael; Salonia, Andrea
• Is Part Of: Journal of sexual medicine. Volume 17:Issue 1(2020)
• Page Start: 7
• Page End: 16
• Publication Date: 2019-10-24
• Subjects: Erectile Dysfunction -- Radical Prostatectomy -- Prostate Cancer -- Erectile Function Recovery; Sexual disorders -- Periodicals; Sex -- Periodicals; Sexual health -- Periodicals; 616.69005
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.09.013
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1743-6095

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: Erectile function (EF) outcomes after radical pelvic surgery vary widely among different studies, partly as a consequence of heterogeneity with regard to the data assessment and reporting methodology. Aim: Review the methodology of data assessment and reporting of studies evaluating EF outcomes after radical prostatectomy (RP), radical cystectomy (RC), and rectal surgery (RS) and provide detailed recommendations to conduct future high-quality research. Methods: The MEDLINE database was searched for randomized clinical trials and open-label prospective or retrospective studies. Main Outcome Measure: The panel reviewed the modality of data assessment and reporting concerning 3 specific areas: preoperative patients assessment, surgical technique description, and postoperative patients management and follow-up. Results: Overall, 280, 36, and 73 studies investigating EF after RP, RC, and RS, respectively, were included. Baseline EF was largely reported (88%) in studies on RP, but only 67% of the studies on either RC or RS assessed EF before surgery. Baseline comorbidities that could impact postoperative EF were reported in 62%, 64%, and 85% of studies on RP, RC, and RS, respectively. The type of surgical approach was provided in all studies, and surgical details relevant to EF (eg, nerve- or organ-sparing surgery) were reported by 86%, 81%, and 62% of studies on RP, RC, and RS, respectively. Conversely, surgeon experience was rarely reported across all studies. Validated tools were commonly used to assess postoperative EF (64% of studies for RP, 78% for RC, and 71% for RS). Only 41%, 17%, and 29% of studies on RP, RC, and RS, respectively, reported a follow-up of at least 2 years. Use of erectile dysfunction treatment after surgery was assessed by only 39%, 17%, and 4.1% of studies on RP, RC, and RS, respectively. Factors potentially influencing EF recovery (eg, urinary or fecal continence, urinary diversion) were commonly reported, but sexual desire after surgery was reported by only 18%, 42%, and 37% of studies on RP, RC, and RS, respectively. Clinical Implications: The use of a shared methodology for the assessment and reporting of data on EF outcomes after pelvic surgery would allow better estimation of EF outcomes after pelvic surgery. Strengths & Limitations: The modality of data assessment and reporting among studies investigating EF outcome after pelvic surgery was systematically investigated to provide recommendations allowing a proper interpretation of data. Conclusion: Studies on EF outcomes after radical pelvic surgery should fulfill specific criteria concerning preoperative patient assessment, reporting of surgical details, and postoperative functional outcome evaluation and management.