PubMed · 8980192
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
A A Skolnick. 1997-01-01. Guidelines for treating erectile dysfunction issued.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8980192/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Erectile dysfunction, which has multifactorial causes including uremia, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, vascular insufficiency, autonomic neuropathy, and psychogenic pathology, occurs in a majority of patients with end-stage renal disease. After evaluation in the Sexual Dysfunction Clinic to exclude reversible disorders that may cause erectile dysfunction, hormonal supplementation, vacuum erection devices, and a self-injection program are offered to patients. Due to concern about patient's immunocompromised status, penile prostheses have not been considered appropriate therapy for those on dialysis or for renal transplant recipients. We report our 8-year experience with penile prostheses in 12 ESRD/renal transplant patients. Eleven patients have maintained their prostheses. Three patients had prostheses with mechanical failures that required reimplantation, and one prosthesis became infected and was explanted. Penile prostheses can be successfully implanted without excessive risk of infection in patients with erectile dysfunction resulting from end-stage renal disease.
BACKGROUND: The number of prostate cancer patients treated by radical prostatectomy has increased. Different data sources have yielded various estimates of the outcomes of this treatment and the need for additional therapy. To provide additional perspective on these issues, the American College of Surgeons conducted surveys of cancer registries and reviewed related data. METHODS: In 1993, in the first phase of the study, hospital cancer registries and programs were sent survey forms and instructions requesting data on up to 5 patients treated by radical prostatectomy at their institutions in 1990. In 1996, in the second phase of the study, additional data were requested on treatment administered to the 1990 patients up to 5 years after surgery, and hospitals were also invited to submit new data on patients diagnosed in 1993. Responses were received from 482 hospitals concerning 2122 patients for 1990, and 265 hospitals provided data on 1304 patients diagnosed in 1993. Follow-up data on 1076 of the 1990 patients were provided by 258 hospitals. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated to determine the probability of additional treatment after radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: Similar surgical pathology outcomes were reported for the 1990 and 1993 patients. For 1990 and 1993, respectively, it was reported that 27.5% and 29.7% of patients maintained erectile function adequate for intercourse after surgery. For 1990 and 1993, respectively, complete control or only occasional urinary incontinence requiring no pads was reported for 81.3% and 79.8% of patients. The surgical mortality rates were less than 1% for both the 1990 and the 1993 patients. The 5-year cumulative probability of any additional treatment after radical prostatectomy was 10.5%. Seminal vesicle involvement, positive surgical margins, lymph node involvement, capsular penetration, high Gleason score, and high prostate specific antigen were significantly associated with greater probability of additional treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital cancer registries are valuable sources of data on patterns of care and outcome for prostate cancer patients. Continuing evaluation of the outcomes of prostate cancer treatments is needed to reconcile the differences in outcomes reported from different data sources.