Penile rehabilitation after pelvic cancer surgery

Sex Disparities in Rectal Cancer Surgery: An In-Depth Analysis of Surgical Approaches and Outcomes

Anatomical and physiological differences exist between sex, leading to variations in how diseases, such as rectal cancer, are prevalence and treatment outcomes of diseases including rectal cancer. In particular, in the case of rectal cancer, anatomical differences may be associated with surgical challenges, and these factors are believed to be important contributors to potential disparities in postoperative recovery, associated complications, and oncological outcomes between male and female patients. However, there is still ongoing debate regarding this matter. Significantly, the male pelvic anatomy is distinguished by its narrower dimensions, which can present surgical challenges and impede visual access during operative procedures, rendering it more complex than surgical interventions in the female pelvis. As a result, this anatomical difference leads to a greater occurrence of postoperative complications, such as anastomotic leakage. Moreover, the pelvis houses nerves that are vital for urinary and genital functions, underscoring the need to assess the potential risks of sexual and urinary dysfunction in rectal cancer surgery. These postoperative complications can significantly impact the quality of life; therefore, it is imperative to perform surgery with an understanding of the structural differences between sexes. Therefore, to address the limitations imposed by anatomical structures, new approaches such as robotic surgery, trans-anal total mesorectal excision, and intraoperative neuromonitoring are being introduced. Furthermore, it is essential to conduct research into fundamental mechanisms that may give rise to differences in surgical outcomes and oncological results between sexes. By comprehending the disparities between males and females, we can advance toward personalized treatments. Consequently, this review outlines variations in surgical approaches, complications, and treatments for rectal cancer in male and female patients.

Sexual rehabilitation recommendations for prostate cancer survivors and their partners from a biopsychosocial Prostate Cancer Supportive Care Program

PURPOSE

This study aimed to highlight the biopsychosocial recommendations provided to prostate cancer survivors and their partners during sexual rehabilitation.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained patient database was conducted for visits between 2013 and 2019. The sexual health rehabilitation action plan (SHRAP) is a standardized 29-item list of biopsychosocial recommendations. The frequency of biopsychosocial recommendations provided to patients via their SHRAPs was assessed.

RESULTS

Among 913 patients, across 2671 appointments, nearly 74% of patients underwent radical prostatectomy. Other treatments included combination therapy (surgery, radiation, and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)) (13%), radiation (external beam radiation or brachytherapy) (5%), and active surveillance (2%). Each patient had a median of 2 (SD 2.06) appointments and received a mean of 10.0 (SD 3.9) recommendations at each visit. Educational recommendations (penile rehabilitation, orgasmic guidelines, and climacturia management) were provided in 84% of visits followed by psychosexual recommendations (pleasure-focused, dedicated time, simmering, sexual aids, and sensate focus) in 71% of all appointments. The top recommendations (total n, frequency of recommendation) were penile rehabilitation (2253, 84%), pleasure-focus (1887, 71%), phosphodiesterase inhibitors (1655, 62%), clinical counselor (1603, 60%), vacuum erectile device (1418, 53%) and intracavernosal injections (1383, 52%).

CONCLUSIONS

Biopsychosocial programs are evolving to be a key part of prostate cancer survivorship. This study's insight suggests that prostate cancer survivors require education around their sexual consequences and psychosexual counseling alongside proven biomedical strategies for erectile dysfunction.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Cancer survivorship programs should integrate educational and psychosocial strategies alongside biological strategies for prostate cancer survivors and their partners.

Comparison of Satisfaction With Penile Prosthesis Implantation in Patients With Radical Prostatectomy or Radical Cystoprostatectomy to the General Population

Introduction

Penile prosthesis implantation is a widely used treatment option for erectile dysfunction. Data is limited with regard to patient satisfaction with a penile prosthesis following radical prostatectomy/cystoprostatectomy vs patients with erectile dysfunction of other etiologies.

Aim

To examine patient satisfaction with penile prosthesis implantation and determine if a difference in satisfaction exists in post-prostatectomy/cystoprostatectomy patients vs patients with erectile dysfunction of other etiologies. We hypothesize that etiology does not affect satisfaction.

Methods

A total of 164 patients underwent penile prosthesis implantation at our institution between August 2017 and December 2019, with 102 patients completing a validated 14 item questionnaire, Erectile Dysfunction Inventory of Treatment Satisfaction (EDITS), at 6 months postoperation. Demographics, surgical characteristics, and erectile dysfunction etiology were recorded. Patients were assigned to one of 2 groups: postprostatectomy/postcystoprostatectomy erectile dysfunction or other etiologies. The study group was further analyzed between radical prostatectomy or radical cystoprostatectomy.

Main Outcome Measures

Satisfaction based on key EDITS questions with postradical prostatectomy/cystoprostatectomy vs patients with erectile dysfunction of other etiologies.

Results

Responses to 3 questions were analyzed: overall satisfaction, expectations met in the past 4 weeks, and confidence in the ability to participate in sexual activity. Chi-square analysis was performed to determine the difference in responses. No difference was seen in overall satisfaction (P = .96), expectations (P = .78), or confidence (P = .78) between groups. On subgroup analysis, there was no difference in reported overall satisfaction (P = .47) or confidence (P = .080) between postprostatectomy and postcystoprostatectomy patients. Postprostatectomy and postcystoprostatectomy patients differed in whether the penile prosthesis implantation met expectations (P = .033). Postprostatectomy patients reported a mean score of 3.5/4 compared to postcystoprostatectomy patients, who reported a mean of 3.0/4.

Conclusions

Our analysis suggests that key erectile function scores are not significantly different between postprostatectomy/postcystoprostatectomy patients compared to other etiologies. The difference in measures between postprostatectomy and postcystoprostatectomy patients is not significant or of unclear significance.

Registration # of clinical trial: HSC-MS-19-0320

Howell S, Palasi S, Green T, et al. Comparison of Satisfaction With Penile Prosthesis Implantation in Patients With Radical Prostatectomy or Radical Cystoprostatectomy to the General Population. Sex Med 2021;9:100300.

Anterior resection of the rectum vs radical prostatectomy. Are there any differences in sexual rehabilitation?

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of penile rehabilitation in restoring erectile function in patients submitted to anterior resection of the rectum (ARR) or radical prostatectomy (RP), comparing the results between these two groups.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a unicenter retrospective cohort study, on patients evaluated in our multidisciplinary oncosexology consultation, between January 2015 and January 2018, submitted to RP or ARR (males) and presenting sexual dysfunction. We evaluate the patient and oncologic characteristics, the type of sexual dysfunction, marital status, assessed the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) on the first and last consultation and the therapeutic approach. A statistical analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 55 patients were included, 60% (33) performed ARR and 40% (22) RP. Regarding the sexual dysfunction after surgery, erectile dysfunction (ED) was found in the majority of patients (>95%). On the initial IIEF-5 scoring, ARR and RP patients had, most frequently, severe or moderate ED (score 5-11), 78.8% and 59.1% respectively. When reassessed the IIEF-5 scoring of each patient during follow-up, there was an improvement in 69.7% of ARR patients and 72.7% of RP patients (p=0.81). Regarding the therapeutic approach, 84.8% of ARR patients used phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors (PDE5I) exclusively, 3% used Alprostadil injection, while RP patients used 63.6% and 31.8%, respectively (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the technical differences of these surgeries, from the sexual point of view these patients benefit with a penile rehabilitation.

Phosphodiesterase-5 Inhibitors and Vacuum Erection Device for Penile Rehabilitation After Laparoscopic Nerve-Preserving Radical Proctectomy for Rectal Cancer: A Prospective Controlled Trial

The current study sought to clarify the role of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE-5i) and a vacuum erection device (VED) in penile rehabilitation after laparoscopic nerve-preserving radical proctectomy (LNRP) for rectal cancer. Participants were assigned to one of the following arms-no-intervention, nightly use of sildenafil 25 mg for 3 months after surgery, or concurrent use of nightly sildenafil 25 mg/day for 3 months and a vacuum erection device (VED) 10 to 15 minutes/day for 3 months-in a nonrandomized fashion. All participants had a follow-up of over 12 months prospectively, and patients had baseline, 3-, 6-, and 12-month assessment based on the International Index of Erectile Function-5 (IIEF-5). Seventy-one cases were included in final analyses. In the no-intervention group, the mean baseline IIEF-5 score of 21.9 decreased rapidly to 5.0 at 3 months ( p < .001), 9.2 at 6 months ( p < .001), and stayed at 10.9 at 12 months ( p < .001). In the single therapy group, the mean baseline IIEF-5 score of 22.4 decreased dramatically to 9.0 at 3 months ( p < .001), 14.9 at 6 months ( p = .005), and stayed at 15.1 at 12 months ( p = .005). In the combined therapy group, the mean baseline IIEF-5 score of 23.0 decreased slightly to 15.0 at 3 months ( p = .005), 18.0 at 6 months ( p = .038), and maintained at 18.7 at 12 months ( p = .163). Findings suggested an over 50% decline in the quality of erection function of the patients after LNRP. The early use of PDE-5i alone or combined use of PDE-5i and VED after LNRP maintained erectile function at 12 months.

Surgery for Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer: Tips, Tricks, and Pitfalls

Rectal cancer can recur locally in up to 10% of the patients who undergo definitive resection for their primary cancer. Surgical salvage is considered appropriate in the curative setting as well as select cases with palliative intent. Disease-free survival following salvage resection is dependent upon achieving an R0 resection margin. A clear understanding of applied surgical anatomy, appropriate preoperative planning, and a multidisciplinary approach to aggressive soft tissue, bony, and vascular resection with appropriate reconstruction is necessary. Technical tips, tricks, and pitfalls that may assist in managing these cancers are discussed and the roles of additional boost radiation and intraoperative radiation therapy in the management of such cancers are also discussed.