Evidence Hub

Effect of surgical approach on erectile function recovery following bilateral nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: an evaluation utilising data from a randomised, double-blind, double-dummy multicentre trial of tadalafil vs placebo

Stolzenburg JU, Graefen M, Kriegel C, Michl U, Martin Morales A, Pommerville PJ, Manning M, Büttner H et al.

BJU international, 2015

422 participants · 16 citations

Abstract

Objectives: To report pre-specified and exploratory results on the effect of different surgical approaches on erectile function (EF) after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (nsRP) obtained from the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy REACTT trial of tadalafil (once a day [OaD] or on-demand [pro-re-nata, PRN]) vs placebo.

Patients and methods: Patients aged 2), and surgical approach (open surgery, robot-assisted laparoscopy, conventional laparoscopy, other). Time to EF recovery was analysed post hoc with a Cox proportional-hazards model including terms for treatment, age-group, country, surgical approach and surgery-by-treatment interaction.

Results: Of 422 patients treated, 189 underwent open surgery, 115 robot-assisted laparoscopy, 88 conventional laparoscopy and 30 surgery classified as 'other'. The odds of achieving EF recovery at the end of drug-free washout were about twice as high for the robot-assisted laparoscopy group compared with the open surgery group (odds ratio 2.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24, 4.72; P = 0.029). Patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopy were significantly more likely to recover during double-blind treatment compared with patients who underwent open surgery (hazard ratio 1.92; 95% CI 1.17, 3.15; P = 0.010). No favourable effect of conventional laparoscopy compared with open surgery could be seen.

Conclusion: These results may provide further insights into the role of surgery on EF recovery after nsRP. However,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 422 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free