World Journal of Urology

, Volume 29, Issue 1, pp 29–34 | Cite as

Is a return to baseline sexual function possible? An analysis of sexual function outcomes following laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

  • Adam W. Levinson
  • Hugh J. Lavery
  • Nicholas T. Ward
  • Li-Ming Su
  • Christian P. Pavlovich
Topic Paper

Abstract

Objectives

Outcome measures following radical prostatectomy are not standardized. Though excellent potency rates are widely reported, few studies address a return to baseline function. We analyze validated sexual health-related quality-of-life outcomes by a strict definition, a return to baseline function, and compare them to less stringent, yet more frequently referenced, categorical definitions of potency.

Methods

Patients undergoing laparoscopic radical prostatectomy from April 2001 to September 2007 completed the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) questionnaire at baseline and 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. We defined a return to baseline as a recovery to greater than one-half standard deviation of the studied population below the patient’s own baseline (clinically detectable threshold). We compared these outcomes to a categorical definition of potency involving intercourse frequency. To limit confounders, we performed subset analyses of preoperatively potent men who received bilateral nerve preservation. Factors predictive of return to baseline function were assessed in multivariable analysis.

Results

A total of 568 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age and follow-up were 57.2 years and 16.9 months, respectively. Using the categorical definition, 85% of preoperatively potent men with bilateral nerve preservation were “potent” at 24 months; however, only 27% returned to their baseline sexual function. In multivariable analyses baseline function, number of nerves spared, and age were independent predictors of a return to baseline function.

Conclusion

While most preoperatively potent men who receive bilateral nerve preservation engage in intercourse postoperatively, few return to their baseline sexual function. We believe that these data provide context for the expectations of patients who elect extirpative therapy.

Keywords

Radical prostatectomy Sexual function Quality of life Outcomes assessment Laparoscopy Prostate cancer Erectile dysfunction 

Abbreviations

SD

Standard deviation

EPIC

Expanded prostate cancer index composite

LRP

Laparoscopic radical prostatectomy

SFS

EPIC sexual function domain subscale

SDS

EPIC sexual domain summary score

SBS

EPIC sexual bother subscale

HRQOL

Health-related quality of life

IIEF

International index of erectile function

SHIM

Sexual health inventory for men

UCLA-PCI

University of California Los Angeles prostate cancer index

References

  1. 1.
    Burnett AL, Aus G, Canby-Hagino ED et al (2007) Erectile function outcome reporting after clinically localized prostate cancer treatment. J Urol 178(2):597–601CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mulhall JP (2009) Defining and reporting erectile function outcomes after radical prostatectomy: challenges and misconceptions. J Urol 181(2):462–471CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Symon Z, Daignault S, Symon R, Dunn RL, Sanda MG, Sandler HM (2006) Measuring patients’ expectations regarding health-related quality-of-life outcomes associated with prostate cancer surgery or radiotherapy. Urology 68(6):1224–1229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schroeck FR, Krupski TL, Sun L et al (2008) Satisfaction and regret after open retropubic or robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol 54(4):785–793CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wei JT, Dunn RL, Litwin MS, Sandler HM, Sanda MG (2000) Development and validation of the expanded prostate cancer index composite (EPIC) for comprehensive assessment of health-related quality of life in men with prostate cancer. Urology 56(6):899–905CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levinson AW, Ward NT, Sanda MG et al (2010) Comparison of validated instruments measuring sexual function in men. Urology 76(2):380–386CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Guyatt GH, Bombardier C, Tugwell PX (1986) Measuring disease-specific quality of life in clinical trials. CMAJ 134(8):889–895PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hays RD, Brodsky M, Johnston MF, Spritzer KL, Hui KK (2005) Evaluating the statistical significance of health-related quality-of-life change in individual patients. Eval Health Prof 28(2):160–171CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J et al (2008) Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med 358(12):1250–1261CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haffner MC, Landis PK, Saigal CS, Carter HB, Freedland SJ (2005) Health-related quality-of-life outcomes after anatomic retropubic radical prostatectomy in the phosphodiesterase type 5 ERA: impact of neurovascular bundle preservation. Urology 66(2):371–376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barry MJ (1999) Quality of life and prostate cancer treatment. J Urol 162(2):407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zeliadt SB, Ramsey SD, Penson DF et al (2006) Why do men choose one treatment over another?: a review of patient decision making for localized prostate cancer. Cancer 106(9):1865–1874CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Walsh PC, Donker PJ (1982) Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol 128(3):492–497PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tal R, Alphs HH, Krebs P, Nelson CJ, Mulhall JP (2009) Erectile function recovery rate after radical prostatectomy: a meta-analysis. J Sex Med 6(9):2538–2546CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Menon M, Kaul S, Bhandari A, Shrivastava A, Tewari A, Hemal A (2005) Potency following robotic radical prostatectomy: a questionnaire based analysis of outcomes after conventional nerve sparing and prostatic fascia sparing techniques. J Urol. 174(6):2291–2296, discussion 2296Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tseng TY, Kuebler HR, Cancel QV et al (2006) Prospective health-related quality-of-life assessment in an initial cohort of patients undergoing robotic radical prostatectomy. Urology 68(5):1061–1066CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Litwin MS, Melmed GY, Nakazon T (2001) Life after radical prostatectomy: a longitudinal study. J Urol 166(2):587–592CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yang BK, Young MD, Calingaert B et al (2004) Prospective and longitudinal patient self-assessment of health-related quality of life following radical perineal prostatectomy. J Urol 172(1):264–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chien GW, Mikhail AA, Orvieto MA et al (2005) Modified clipless antegrade nerve preservation in robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy with validated sexual function evaluation. Urology 66(2):419–423CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Menon M, Shrivastava A, Kaul S, et al. (2007) Vattikuti Institute prostatectomy: contemporary technique and analysis of results. Eur Urol. 51(3):648–657; discussion 657–648Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Padma-Nathan H, McCullough AR, Levine LA et al (2008) Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of postoperative nightly sildenafil citrate for the prevention of erectile dysfunction after bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Int J Impot Res 20(5):479–486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eastham JA (2008) Robotic-assisted prostatectomy: is there truth in advertising? Eur Urol 54(4):720–722CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mulhall JP, Rojaz-Cruz C, Muller A (2010) An analysis of sexual health information on radical prostatectomy websites. BJU Int 105(1):68–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Beaton DE (2003) Simple as possible? Or too simple? Possible limits to the universality of the one half standard deviation. Med Care 41(5):593–596CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW (2003) Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 41(5):582–592CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Adam W. Levinson
    • 1
  • Hugh J. Lavery
    • 1
  • Nicholas T. Ward
    • 2
  • Li-Ming Su
    • 3
  • Christian P. Pavlovich
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Minimally Invasive and Robotic Surgery, Department of UrologyMount Sinai School of MedicineNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.James Buchanan Brady Urological InstituteJohns Hopkins Medical InstitutionsBaltimoreUSA
  3. 3.Department of UrologyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations