PubMed · 8435053
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
J W Studd, R N Smith. 1993. Oestradiol and testosterone implants.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0950-351x(05)80276-9
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Sexual dysfunction remains a common and often distressing problem in the male dialysis population. Traditionally its management has consisted of correction of anemia, optimization of dialysis, removal of implicated medication, and finally depot injections of a testosterone ester. At a dedicated renal impotence clinic, we studied the effectiveness of testosterone replacement in men with biochemically proven hypogonadism and then vacuum tumescence therapy in those with continued erectile dysfunction. Depot testosterone was given to 27 patients (aged 52.4+/-2.5 years; duration of dialysis, 2.00+/-0.40 years; and duration of sexual dysfunction, 2.92+/-0.49 years): sexual function was fully restored in only three (11.1%), and two gradually lost the response over 18 months. Nineteen patients (70.3%) had partial responses, varying from an increased sense of well-being alone to restored sexual function apart from an impairment of the duration of penile erection. Five patients (18.5%) had no response, and testosterone was contraindicated in another four. Four of the treated patients (14.8%) reported fluid retention. Vacuum tumescence devices were then offered to 32 patients who remained impotent but declined by six. Twenty-six patients (aged 49.6+/-2.2 years; duration of dialysis, 2.50+/-0.58 years; and duration of sexual dysfunction, 3.26+/-0.56 years) used the devices, with 19 (73.1%) having full correction of their erectile dysfunction; six also continued with depot testosterone to maintain their libido. Penile discomfort was described by five patients (19.2%) whose potency was not restored. A further five predialysis patients have used the devices, and all had correction of their erectile dysfunction. The correction of biochemical hypogonadism in the male dialysis population with testosterone rarely restores sexual function to normal, whereas vacuum tumescence therapy corrects penile erection dysfunction in most patients.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the process of ovulation could be interrupted by the insertion of Norplant implants (Leiras Pharmaceuticals, Turku, Finland) in the advanced preovulatory phase. DESIGN: Prospective study. SETTING: The Department of Biomedical Research at the Family Planning Clinic of PROFAMILIA, Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic. PATIENTS: Healthy women of reproductive age, requesting Norplant implants contraception. Thirteen of 15 women volunteers who were admitted completed the study. INTERVENTIONS: Norplant implants were inserted when the dominant follicle reached a mean diameter of 16 mm, based on serial vaginal ultrasounds (US) beginning on day 10 of the cycle. Blood samples for determination of E2, P, LH, and levonorgestrel, were taken and vaginal US performed at 0, 4, 24, 48, and 72 hours after insertion. If follicle rupture had not occurred at 72 hours after insertion, blood sampling and US were done three times per week during 2 additional weeks. RESULTS: Follicle rupture occurred in 11 of 13 subjects within 72 hours after insertion, with the exception of 1 subject in whom rupture occurred between 72 and 192 hours. Two women already had an LH peak at the time of insertion. In 9 of the remaining 11 women, a shortlasting, blunted LH surge was observed at 4 hours postinsertion. In the remaining two women, who had the lowest E2 levels, ovulation was inhibited, and a persistent follicle developed without luteinization. CONCLUSIONS: The insertion of Norplant implants in the advanced follicular phase will not inhibit ovulation if sufficient E2 priming has occurred. On the contrary, the exogenous progestin may rapidly foster ovulation shortly after.
OBJECTIVE: Efficacy and acceptability of continuous combined parenteral hormone replacement consisting of subdermal estradiol delivery and intrauterine progestin delivery was studied. STUDY DESIGN: Thirty-six volunteer postmenopausal women seeking treatment for climacteric symptoms participated in this open, randomized study. The subjects received either one or three subdermal implants with a controlled daily release of estradiol in vitro. Progestin therapy was carried out with a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device. Climacteric symptoms and serum concentrations of estrone, estradiol, follicle-stimulating hormone, and sex hormone-binding globulin were followed up for 1 year. The subjects kept daily records of bleeding. RESULTS: Serum estradiol concentrations with the set of three implants were stable during the follow-up period; the range of mean serum estradiol concentrations was 45 to 57 pg/ml. Four women, all from the group with one implant, discontinued the study after 6 months because of the return of climacteric symptoms. In spite of different daily estradiol doses, the patterns of bleeding were similar in both groups. At the end of the follow-up year 72% of the women had had no bleeding or spotting in the previous 3 months. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that by combining subdermal and intrauterine steroid delivery systems postmenopausal hormone replacement therapy can be carried out successfully without daily effort and with minimal or no bleeding.