26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Is it Worth Starting Sexual Rehabilitation Before Radical Prostatectomy? Results From a Systematic Review of the Literature

      systematic-review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background and Purpose: Sexual dysfunction (SD) is a frequent side effect associated with radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PCa). Some studies have showed the benefit associated with preoperative sexual rehabilitation (prehabilitation) and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) for RP, but no clear clinical recommendations are available yet. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review on sexual prehabilitation prior to RP for patients with a localized PCa and analyze the impact on postoperative sexual health compared with the standard post-operative care.

          Methods: We performed a systematic review of the literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) recommendations.

          Results: Four randomized control trials and one retrospective comparative study were included in the analyses. Three of the five studies showed an improved EF recovery post-RP in the prehabilitation group compared to the standard of care represented by: higher International Index of Erectile Function 5 score (IIEF5) or IIEF score ( p < 0.0001) and a higher percentage of patients reporting return of EF based on the Sexual Encounter Profile (SEP) (56 vs. 24%, p = 0.007). Self-confidence, therapeutic alliance, and adherence to treatment were stronger for patients with preoperative consultations ( p < 0.05) and EF recovery was better in cases of a higher number of follow-up visits (OR 4–5 visits vs. 1:12.19, p = 0.002).

          Discussion: Despite heterogenous methods and high risks of bias in this systematic review, starting sexual rehabilitation prior to surgery seems to ensure better EF recovery. This prehabilitation should include information of both the patient and his or her partner, with a closer follow up and the use of a multimodal treatment approach that still remains to be defined and validated (oral medication, vacuum devices, pelvic floor muscle training, etc.).

          Related collections

          Most cited references49

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument.

          Because of specific methodological difficulties in conducting randomized trials, surgical research remains dependent predominantly on observational or non-randomized studies. Few validated instruments are available to determine the methodological quality of such studies either from the reader's perspective or for the purpose of meta-analysis. The aim of the present study was to develop and validate such an instrument. After an initial conceptualization phase of a methodological index for non-randomized studies (MINORS), a list of 12 potential items was sent to 100 experts from different surgical specialties for evaluation and was also assessed by 10 clinical methodologists. Subsequent testing involved the assessment of inter-reviewer agreement, test-retest reliability at 2 months, internal consistency reliability and external validity. The final version of MINORS contained 12 items, the first eight being specifically for non-comparative studies. Reliability was established on the basis of good inter-reviewer agreement, high test-retest reliability by the kappa-coefficient and good internal consistency by a high Cronbach's alpha-coefficient. External validity was established in terms of the ability of MINORS to identify excellent trials. MINORS is a valid instrument designed to assess the methodological quality of non-randomized surgical studies, whether comparative or non-comparative. The next step will be to determine its external validity when used in a large number of studies and to compare it with other existing instruments.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?

            It has been suggested that the quality of clinical trials should be assessed by blinded raters to limit the risk of introducing bias into meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and into the peer-review process. There is very little evidence in the literature to substantiate this. This study describes the development of an instrument to assess the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in pain research and its use to determine the effect of rater blinding on the assessments of quality. A multidisciplinary panel of six judges produced an initial version of the instrument. Fourteen raters from three different backgrounds assessed the quality of 36 research reports in pain research, selected from three different samples. Seven were allocated randomly to perform the assessments under blind conditions. The final version of the instrument included three items. These items were scored consistently by all the raters regardless of background and could discriminate between reports from the different samples. Blind assessments produced significantly lower and more consistent scores than open assessments. The implications of this finding for systematic reviews, meta-analytic research and the peer-review process are discussed.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              EAU-EANM-ESTRO-ESUR-SIOG Guidelines on Prostate Cancer—2020 Update. Part 1: Screening, Diagnosis, and Local Treatment with Curative Intent

              To present a summary of the 2020 version of the European Association of Urology (EAU)-European Association of Nuclear Medicine (EANM)-European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO)-European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)-International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) guidelines on screening, diagnosis, and local treatment of clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Front Surg
                Front Surg
                Front. Surg.
                Frontiers in Surgery
                Frontiers Media S.A.
                2296-875X
                21 April 2021
                2021
                : 8
                : 648345
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Urology, Bichat Claude Bernard Hospital , Paris, France
                [2] 2Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive Sciences, Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II , Naples, Italy
                [3] 3Department of Urology, Instituto de Investigation Sanitaria Hospital 12 de October (imas12), Hospital Universitario 12 October , Madrid, Spain
                [4] 4Department of Urology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe University Frankfurt , Frankfurt, Germany
                [5] 5University of Paris , Paris, France
                [6] 6Department of Medicine, Surgery, Dentistry “Scuola Medica Salernitana”, University of Salerno , Salerno, Italy
                Author notes

                Edited by: Clemens Mathias Rosenbaum, Asklepios Klinik Barmbek, Germany

                Reviewed by: Vincent Misrai, Clinique Pasteur, France; Mark Taratkin, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Russia; Philipp Mandel, University Hospital Frankfurt, Germany

                *Correspondence: Nadja Schoentgen nadja.schoentgen@ 123456gmail.com

                This article was submitted to Genitourinary Surgery, a section of the journal Frontiers in Surgery

                Article
                10.3389/fsurg.2021.648345
                8098976
                fefab849-3bfd-46ff-9dbf-f1bef8ac5cf6
                Copyright © 2021 Schoentgen, Califano, Manfredi, Romero-Otero, Chun, Ouzaid, Hermieu, Xylinas and Verze.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                : 31 December 2020
                : 01 March 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 50, Pages: 9, Words: 6244
                Categories
                Surgery
                Systematic Review

                prehabilitation,sexual rehabilitation,sexual dysfunction,radical prostatecomy,prostate cancer

                Comments

                Comment on this article