title: [Rehabilitation of erectile function after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy: therapeutic concepts in Germany].
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Despite objective published data regarding rehabilitation of erectile function (EF) after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (nsRP) the gold-standard treatment is still under debate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the distribution of the different treatment options in Germany.
  
  
  METHODS
  Between October 2010 and May 2012 a questionnaire was sent to urologists in outpatient, general and university hospitals and rehabilitation hospitals in Germany. The survey consisted of various questions concerning, e.g. if and what kind of therapy urologists choose to support rehabilitation of EF after nsRP. Further questions dealt with the frequency, duration and optimal start of the chosen therapy.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Currently 188 urologists have completed and returned the questionnaire. The distribution was urologists in hospitals n=79 and outpatient/ambulatory n=106, with 24 % performing surgical treatment and urologists in rehabilitation hospitals n=3. The question about the rehabilitation concept showed 39 different forms of treatment within this group. To increase EF after nsRP PDE5 inhibitors were mostly administered (88 %) with 45 % on request compared to 55 %on a daily or regular basis ≥ 3 times/week. The use of penile injection therapy, medicated urethral system for erection (MUSE) and vacuum constriction devices (VCD) was prescribed by 32 %, 6 % and 30 % of urologists, respectively. Only 14 % of the urologists did not choose any active kind of rehabilitation treatment for EF recovery after nsRP.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Many different therapeutic concepts are currently performed in Germany to increase EF recovery after nsRP. The use of PDE5 inhibitors is the most commonly chosen treatment option. Despite published data regarding effectiveness, the optimal treatment seems to be still unknown.
authors.affiliation: Klinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Klinikum Osnabrück, Am Finkenhügel 1, 49076, Osnabrück, Deutschland, andreas.bannowsky@klinikum-os.de.
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Bannowsky
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Raileanu
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Uckert
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: van Ahlen
mesh_terms: D003625:Data Collection; D007172:Erectile Dysfunction / Q000209:etiology / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D005858:Germany; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D059351:Organ Sparing Treatments / Q000009:adverse effects*; D015917:Penile Prosthesis / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D058986:Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D010818:Practice Patterns, Physicians' / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D011468:Prostatectomy / Q000009:adverse effects* / Q000534:rehabilitation*; D011471:Prostatic Neoplasms / Q000150:complications / Q000601:surgery; D016896:Treatment Outcome
chemical_list: D058986:Phosphodiesterase 5 Inhibitors
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2008 Oct;54(4):924-31
references.pmid: 18640769
references.citation: Int J Impot Res. 2009 May-Jun;21(3):158-64
references.pmid: 19225465
references.citation: BJU Int. 2012 Dec;110(11 Pt C):E931-8
references.pmid: 22520165
references.citation: J Urol. 2010 Jun;183(6):2451-6
references.pmid: 20403617
references.citation: Curr Urol Rep. 2008 Nov;9(6):506-13
references.pmid: 18947517
references.citation: J Urol. 2000 Dec;164(6):1929-34
references.pmid: 11061884
references.citation: BJU Int. 2008 May;101(10):1279-83
references.pmid: 18284406
references.citation: J Urol. 2006 Jun;175(6):2214-7
references.pmid: 16697842
references.citation: J Sex Med. 2011 Aug;8(8):2370-6
references.pmid: 21679306
references.citation: Urol Int. 2008;80(3):249-52
references.pmid: 18480625
references.citation: J Sex Med. 2012 Apr;9(4):1182-9
references.pmid: 21054791