PD20-12 HYPERBARIC OXYGENATION THERAPY IN SEXUAL RECOVERY AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Medical, Hormonal & Non-surgical Therapy I (PD20)1 Sep 2021PD20-12 HYPERBARIC OXYGENATION THERAPY IN SEXUAL RECOVERY AFTER RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY Ragif Veliev, Eugeniy Veliev, and Yegor Sokolov Ragif VelievRagif Veliev More articles by this author , Eugeniy VelievEugeniy Veliev More articles by this author , and Yegor SokolovYegor Sokolov More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002009.12AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Erectile function (EF) preservation remains an important goal in maintaining quality of life after radical prostatectomy (RP). A number of methods have been proposed to improve the recovery of EF after RP, however the current results cannot be considered optimal. The aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of hyperbaric oxygenation therapy (HOT) on sexual function rehabilitation in patients after nerve-sparing RP (nsRP) METHODS: The study comprised 76 patients with preserved EF prior to surgery, which were randomized into two groups. Group 1 (n=36) received HOT course (10 x 90 min sessions, 100% oxygen at 2.0 ATA) during first month after RP; group 2 (n=40) had no postoperative therapy. Patients in both groups received no additional therapy with the aim of sexual rehabilitation (PDE5 inhibitors, prostaglandins, etc.). Both groups did not differ in the age of patients at the time of RP, prostate volume, body mass index, clinical stage, grade group, IIEF score before surgery and the proportion of uni- and bilateral nsRP (p>0.05). EF status was assessed by IIEF-15 questionnaire. A comparative analysis of the dynamics of EF restoration in both groups was performed. RESULTS: One year after surgery, full EF recovery in the HOT group was observed in 28 versus 19 cases in the control group (76.5% vs 47.6%, p=0.001), primarily because of positive HOT effect on EF rehabilitation in unilateral nsRP cases (77.7% vs 40%, p=0.003). HOT after bilateral nsRP did not have a significant effect on the recovery of EF (75% vs 71,4%, p=0.3). Use of HOT had no influence on orgasmic function rehabilitation (82.4% vs 81%, p>0.05). No biochemical recurrences were observed in the HOT group. CONCLUSIONS: HOT may be considered as possible EF rehabilitation method in patients after unilateral nsRP. According to the early results, use of HOT in postoperative period doesn’t exceed the risk of biochemical recurrence. Further efficacy and safety assessment is needed as well as evaluation of an optimal scheme and terms of the treatment. Source of Funding: No source of funding © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e371-e372 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Ragif Veliev More articles by this author Eugeniy Veliev More articles by this author Yegor Sokolov More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...