Display options
Cite
Sedigh O, Falcone M, Ceruti C, et al. Sexual function after surgical treatment for penile cancer: Which organ-sparing approach gives the best results?. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015;9(7):E423-7doi: 10.5489/cuaj.2801.
Sedigh, O., Falcone, M., Ceruti, C., Timpano, M., Preto, M., Oderda, M., Kuehhas, F., Sibona, M., Gillo, A., Gontero, P., Rolle, L., & Frea, B. (2015). Sexual function after surgical treatment for penile cancer: Which organ-sparing approach gives the best results?. Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 9(7), E423-7. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2801
Sedigh, Omid, et al. "Sexual function after surgical treatment for penile cancer: Which organ-sparing approach gives the best results?." Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada vol. 9,7 (2015): E423-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.2801
Sedigh O, Falcone M, Ceruti C, Timpano M, Preto M, Oderda M, Kuehhas F, Sibona M, Gillo A, Gontero P, Rolle L, Frea B. Sexual function after surgical treatment for penile cancer: Which organ-sparing approach gives the best results?. Can Urol Assoc J. 2015 Jul-Aug;9(7):E423-7. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.2801. PMID: 26279710; PMCID: PMC4514486.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Can Urol Assoc J. 2015 Jul-Aug;9(7):E423-7. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.2801.

Sexual function after surgical treatment for penile cancer: Which organ-sparing approach gives the best results?.

Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada

Omid Sedigh, Marco Falcone, Carlo Ceruti, Massimiliano Timpano, Mirko Preto, Marco Oderda, Franklin Kuehhas, Mattia Sibona, Arianna Gillo, Paolo Gontero, Luigi Rolle, Bruno Frea

Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Turin, Turin, Italy;
  2. Medical School of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

PMID: 26279710 PMCID: PMC4514486 DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.2801

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We compared the postoperative sexual function of patients who underwent wide local excision (WLE) and glansectomy with urethral glanduloplasty for penile cancer.

METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed clinical data of 41 patients affected by superficial, localized penile cancer (≤cT2a) between 2006 and 2013. Patients with severe erectile dysfunction and not interested in resuming an active sexual life were selected for penile partial amputation. Patients with preoperative satisfying erectile function and concerned about the preservation of their sexual potency were scheduled for WLE (Group A) or glansectomy with urethral glanduloplasty (Group B). Sexual function was assessed with the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaire and the Sex Encounter Profile (SEP). At 1 year, patients were asked to complete the questionnaires again and were questioned about their genital sensibility and ejaculatory reflex persistence. Postoperative complications were reported according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Statistical analysis was performed by two-tailed test: Student t-test and chi-square.

RESULTS: Among the 41 patients enrolled, 12 underwent WLE (29.2%), 23 glansectomy with urethral glanduloplasty (56%) and 6 with penile partial amputation (14.6%). A decrease in postoperative IIEF was recorded in both groups, but was statistically significant only in Group B (p = 0.003). As for the SEP, while no significant changes were recorded postoperatively in Group A, a marked reduction was reported for Group B, with a statistically significant decrease in the possibility of achieving penetrative intercourse (p = 0.006) and in the perceived satisfaction during sexual activity (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS: WLE lead to better sexual outcomes and less postoperative complications as compared to glansectomy with urethral glanduloplasty.

References

  1. J Urol. 2014 Oct;192(4):1105-10 - PubMed
  2. J Urol. 2007 Sep;178(3 Pt 1):941-4 - PubMed
  3. Curr Psychiatry Rep. 2001 Jun;3(3):182-7 - PubMed
  4. BJU Int. 2000 Feb;85(3):299-301 - PubMed
  5. Br J Urol. 1994 Nov;74(5):652-7 - PubMed
  6. J Urol. 2006 Aug;176(2):575-80; discussion 580 - PubMed
  7. J Urol. 2005 Dec;174(6):2218-20, discussion 2220 - PubMed
  8. Urology. 2001 May;57(5):966-9 - PubMed
  9. BJU Int. 2005 Nov;96(7):1040-3 - PubMed
  10. Urol Oncol. 2007 Sep-Oct;25(5):361-7 - PubMed
  11. World J Urol. 2009 Apr;27(2):179-87 - PubMed
  12. Cancer. 1999 Apr 1;85(7):1565-8 - PubMed
  13. J Urol. 2012 Sep;188(3):803-8 - PubMed
  14. Urol Clin North Am. 1992 May;19(2):277-82 - PubMed
  15. Lancet Oncol. 2004 Apr;5(4):240-7 - PubMed
  16. Urology. 1997 Jun;49(6):822-30 - PubMed
  17. Eur Urol. 2007 Sep;52(3):893-8 - PubMed
  18. Urology. 2005 Dec;66(6):1292-5 - PubMed
  19. J Urol. 2014 Jul;192(1):120-5 - PubMed
  20. Ann Surg. 2004 Aug;240(2):205-13 - PubMed
  21. Eur Urol. 2010 Jun;57(6):1002-12 - PubMed
  22. Urology. 1997 Oct;50(4):593-6 - PubMed

Publication Types