Abstract
Purpose We compared semen quality and patient preference between penile vibratory stimulation and electroejaculation in spinal cord injured men. Materials and Methods We treated 11 spinal cord injured men with penile vibratory stimulation and electroejaculation in random order. End points examined were semen analysis, sperm functional assessment, and patient pain scores (1 to 10) and preferred procedure. Differences between the procedures were determined with the paired Student t test. Results There was no difference in antegrade sperm count but penile vibratory stimulation specimens had greater motility (26.0 versus 10.7%), viability (25.2 versus 9.7%) and motile sperm count (185.0 x 10 6 versus 97.0 x 10 6). The retrograde sperm count was greater (but not significant) in electroejaculation patients. The total (antegrade plus retrograde) and motile sperm counts were not different. There was no difference in immunobead test (all negative), cervical mucus penetration or sperm penetration assay, although the percent hamster egg penetration approached significance (53.7% for penile vibratory stimulation versus 22.1% for electroejaculation, p = 0.06). There was no difference in the peak blood pressures and no complications were noted. Pain scores were significantly greater for electroejaculation compared to penile vibratory stimulation (5.2 versus 1.7, respectively). All patients preferred penile vibratory stimulation. Conclusions There was a slight advantage in sperm quality and a high patient preference in favor of penile vibratory stimulation. Penile vibratory stimulation should be attempted first to induce ejaculation in spinal cord injured men, with electroejaculation reserved for failures.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.