Predicting participation in and successful outcome of a penile rehabilitation programme using a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor with a vacuum erection device after radical prostatectomy

Masaki Kimura, Jorge R. Caso, Lionel L. Bañez, Bridget F. Koontz, Leah Gerber, Cagri Senocak, Craig F. Donatucci, Zeljko Vujaskovic, Judd W. Moul, Thomas J. Polascik

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Scopus citations


OBJECTIVES • To investigate baseline demographic and clinicopathological characteristics of men who participate in our penile rehabilitation programme after radical prostatectomy (RP). • To determine predictors for participation in rehabilitation, as well as successful rehabilitation outcome using multivariable logistic regression analyses. PATIENTS AND METHODS • We analysed data on 2345 consecutive patients who underwent RP between 2001 and 2009 in our institution. • The decision to participate in penile rehabilitation using phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor (PDE5i) with a vacuum erection device (VED) was based on the patient's choice after post-RP discussions. • Rehabilitation success was defined using the following criteria: (i) patients who continued the penile rehabilitation programme and did not switch treatment from PDE5i to other erectile aids, (ii) success was noted in men who had an Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) sexual function (SF) score of > 75% of the patient's baseline EPIC score, and (iii) patients who answered that they achieved adequate erections with a PDE5i. • Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with treatment participation and its success. RESULTS • Of 676 patients, 354 (53.2%) men participated in a penile rehabilitation programme. Among 329 rehabilitation participants with available data, 96 (29.2%) had treatment success. • In multivariable regression analysis, African-Americans (odds ratio [ OR ] 3.47, P < 0.001), and higher preoperative SF (OR 1.02, P < 0.001) were associated with participation in rehabilitation. • Higher preoperative PSA concentration (OR 0.50, P =0.004) and presence of positive surgical margins (OR 0.68, P =0.042) were found to be independent predictors for non-participation in the rehabilitation. • For rehabilitation outcomes, being older at surgery (OR 0.93, P =0.001) and adjuvant therapy (OR 0.34, P =0.047) had a negative association with successful outcome. • There was a trend in the relationship between primary surgeon and rehabilitation success (OR 1.05, P =0.053) CONCLUSIONS • Those patients who have risk factors, e.g. adverse prostate cancer features, need to be carefully counselled and encouraged to participate in the penile rehabilitation programme. • Clinicians could lead patients toward successful outcomes if appropriate surgical techniques and rehabilitation are provided.

Original languageEnglish
JournalBJU International
Issue number11 C
StatePublished - Dec 1 2012



  • Erectile dysfunction
  • Penile rehabilitation
  • Prostate cancer
  • Radical prostatectomy
  • Sexual function

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this