Der Urologe, Ausgabe A

, Volume 42, Issue 10, pp 1317–1321 | Cite as

Diagnostik der erektilen Dysfunktion – was ist heute noch notwendig?

Leitthema

Zusammenfassung

Die oral wirksamen PDE-5-Inhibitoren zur Behandlung der erektilen Dysfunktion haben die Diagnostik der erektilen Dysfunktion (ED) nicht überflüssig gemacht, sondern sie dahingehend vereinfacht, dass aufgrund der hohen Responderrate die invasiven Untersuchungsmethoden nur noch selten erforderlich sind. Die Diagnostik der ED ist deshalb unerlässlich, weil sie das erste Symptom einer schweren zugrunde liegenden Erkrankung sein kann (Koronarsklerose, allgemeine Arteriosklerose, Diabetes mellitus, Hypertonie, Fettstoffwechselstörung etc).

Schlüsselwörter

Abgestufte ED-Diagnostik PDE-5-Inhibitorentest Dopplersonographie Duplexsonographie Co-Morbiditäten bei ED Invasive Tests selten 

Abstract

Diagnostic procedures for erectile dysfunction (ED) are still mandatory because ED can be the presenting symptom for a variety of diseases such as diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, atherosclerosis, hypertension and hyperlipidemia. Invasive testing for ED has decreased due to the high responder rate for oral PDE-5 inhibitors.

Keywords

Step by step procedures PDE-5 inhibitor test  Doppler ultrasound Duplex ultrasound ED comorbidities Reduced invasive tests 

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Buvat J, Lemaire A (1997) Endocrine screening in 1022 men with erectile dysfunction: clinical significance and cost-effective strategy. J Urol 158: 1764–1767PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eid JF et al. (2000) First International Conference on the Management of Erectile Dysfunction. Overview consensus statement. Int J Impot Res 12 (Suppl 4): S2–S5CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fabra M, Frieling A, Porst H et al. (1997) Single potential analysis of corpus cavernosum electromyography for the assesment of erectile dysfunction: Provocation, reproducibility and age dependence—findings in 36 healthy volunteers and 324 patients. J Urol 158: 444–450PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Govier FE, McClure RD, Weissman RM et al. (1993) Experience with triple-drug therapy in a pharmacological erection program. J Urol 150: 1822–1824PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hagemann JH, Stief CG (1997) Doppler-, Duplex- und farbkodierte Duplexuntersuchung der penilen Gefäße. In: Stief CG, Hartmann U, Höfner K, Jonas U (Hrsg) Erektile Dysfunktion. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokio, S 141–159Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hatzichristou D, Hatzimouratidis K, Bekas M et al. (2002) Diagnostic steps in the evaluation of patients with erectile dysfunction. J Urol 168: 615–620PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kropman RF, van Oostayen JA, Zwinderman KH et al. (1995) Analysis of continous nocturnal penile rigidity measurements with the use of the Rigiscan summery analysis software program. Int J Impot Res 7: 71–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lue TF (1990) Impotence: a patient´s goal-directed approach to treatment. World J Urol 8: 67Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nehra A et al. (2002) Second International Conference on Management of Erctile Dysfunction. New perspectives on treatment. Int J Impot Res 14 (Suppl 1): S1–S5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Porst H (1996) The rationale for prostaglandine E1 in erectile failure: a survey of worldwide experience. J Urol 155: 802–815PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Porst H (2000) Manual der Impotenz. Uni-Med, Bremen S 114Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Porst, H (2003) Erektile Dysfunktion (ED). In: Jocham D, Miller K (Hrsg) Praxis der Urologie. Thieme, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G et al. (1997) The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF): A multidimensionale scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology 49: 822–830PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sharlip ID (2000) Diagnostic evaluation of erectile dysfunction in the era of oral therapy. Int J Impot Res 12 (Suppl 4): S12–S14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stief CG, Hartmann U (1997) Praktisches Vorgehen und kritische Bewertung. In: Stief CG, Hartmann U, Höfner K, Jonas U (Hrsg) Erektile Dysfunktion. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokio, S 96–105Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    The Process of Care Consensus Panel. Position paper (1999) The process of care model for evaluation and treatment of erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 11: 59–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weiske WH (1990) Pharmakokavernosometrie und Pharmakokavernosographie bei erektiler Dysfunktion. Urologe A 29: 126–134PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Stuttgart
  2. 2.Stuttgart

Personalised recommendations