Purpose: We compared the impact of HoLEP and TURP on sexual function. Materials and Methods: Between January 2002 and January 2003, 120 patients with a mean age +/- SD of 65.2-7.1 years who had benign prostatic hyperplasia were enrolled in this 2-center, prospective, randomized study. A total of 60 patients with a mean age of 65.25 +/- 6.9 years underwent HoLEP (group 1) and 60 with a mean age of 64.18 +/- 7.2 years underwent TURP (group 2). Patients were assessed before surgery, and at 12 and 24-month followup visits. Subjective symptoms were scored by the International Prostate Symptom Score, the International Prostate Symptom Score quality of life question, IIEF, 10 nonvalidated general assessment questions, physical examination, serum prostate specific antigen and transrectal ultrasonography. Results: A total of 32 patients (53.3%) in group 1 and 31 (51.6%) in group 2 reported various degrees of erectile dysfunction before surgery according to the IIEF-EF score. Differences between preoperative and postoperative orgasmic domain scores in each group were significant (p <0.001). A slight but not significant increase in the mean IIEF-EF domain score was reported in each group at postoperative assessments without any difference between the 2 surgical approaches. According to general assessment question analysis the prevalence of subjectively reported postoperative retrograde ejaculation was significantly higher than at baseline assessment in the 2 groups with no differences between the 2 surgical procedures. Conclusions: TURP and HoLEP significantly lowered the IIEF orgasmic function domain with no differences between techniques. This was caused by retrograde ejaculation. Marginal, nonsignificant erectile function improvement was reported after surgery in the 2 groups.

Impact on sexual function of holmium laser enucleation versus transurethral resection of the prostate: Results of a prospective, 2-center, randomized trial

Briganti A;SALONIA , ANDREA;MONTORSI , FRANCESCO
2006-01-01

Abstract

Purpose: We compared the impact of HoLEP and TURP on sexual function. Materials and Methods: Between January 2002 and January 2003, 120 patients with a mean age +/- SD of 65.2-7.1 years who had benign prostatic hyperplasia were enrolled in this 2-center, prospective, randomized study. A total of 60 patients with a mean age of 65.25 +/- 6.9 years underwent HoLEP (group 1) and 60 with a mean age of 64.18 +/- 7.2 years underwent TURP (group 2). Patients were assessed before surgery, and at 12 and 24-month followup visits. Subjective symptoms were scored by the International Prostate Symptom Score, the International Prostate Symptom Score quality of life question, IIEF, 10 nonvalidated general assessment questions, physical examination, serum prostate specific antigen and transrectal ultrasonography. Results: A total of 32 patients (53.3%) in group 1 and 31 (51.6%) in group 2 reported various degrees of erectile dysfunction before surgery according to the IIEF-EF score. Differences between preoperative and postoperative orgasmic domain scores in each group were significant (p <0.001). A slight but not significant increase in the mean IIEF-EF domain score was reported in each group at postoperative assessments without any difference between the 2 surgical approaches. According to general assessment question analysis the prevalence of subjectively reported postoperative retrograde ejaculation was significantly higher than at baseline assessment in the 2 groups with no differences between the 2 surgical procedures. Conclusions: TURP and HoLEP significantly lowered the IIEF orgasmic function domain with no differences between techniques. This was caused by retrograde ejaculation. Marginal, nonsignificant erectile function improvement was reported after surgery in the 2 groups.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11768/17446
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 155
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 127
social impact