No abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluate the efficacy of low-intensity extracorporeal shock wave therapy (LiESWT) for the treatment of erectile dysfunction (ED). Materials and methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline , and Cochrane databases was performed from November 2005 to July 2018. RCTs evaluating efficacy of LiESWT in the treatment of ED were selected. The primary outcomes were the mean difference between treatment and sham patients in the International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) domain score 1 month after treatment, and the mean change in IIEF-EF from baseline to 1 month post-treatment. The secondary analysis considered the percentage of men whose erectile hardness score (EHS) changed from <2 at baseline to >3 after treatment. All analyses used a random effects method to pool study-specific results. Results: A total of seven RCTs provided data for 607 patients. The mean IIEF-EF 1 month post-treatment ranged from 12.8 to 22.0 in the treatment group versus 8.17–16.43 in the sham group. The mean difference between the treatment and sham groups at the 1 month follow up was a statistically significant increase in IIEF-EF of 4.23 ( p = 0.012). Overall, five of the seven trials provided data on the proportion of patients with baseline EHS <2 who improved to EHS >3 at 1 month post-treatment. The proportions ranged from 3.5 to 90% in the treatment group versus 0–9% in the sham group and the pooled relative risk of EHS improvement for the treated versus sham group was 6.63 ( p = 0.0095). No significant adverse events were reported. Conclusions: This is the first meta-analysis that evaluates RCTs exploring LiESWT as a treatment modality strictly for ED. This therapeutic strategy appears to be well tolerated with short-term benefits. However further studies exploring specific treatment regimens and long-term outcomes are needed.

Many medical and surgical options are available for patients with NBoD. Selecting the appropriate medical or surgical treatment involves a careful evaluation of each patient's physical, psychosocial, financial, and geographic variables in an effort to optimize bowel function.

No abstract

Urethroplasty success may be affected by comorbidities but not age. Age alone should not be used as an absolute exclusion criterion for men needing urethral reconstruction.

No abstract

The Gleason scoring system is a key component of a prostate cancer diagnosis, since it indicates disease aggressiveness. It also serves as a risk communication tool that facilitates shared treatment decision-making. However, the system is highly complex and therefore difficult to communicate: factors which have been shown to undermine well-informed and high-quality shared treatment decision-making. To systematically explore prostate cancer patients' understanding of the Gleason scoring system (GSS), we assessed knowledge and perceived importance among men who had completed treatment (N = 50). Patients were administered a survey that assessed patient knowledge and patients' perceived importance of the GSS, as well as demographics, medical factors (e.g., Gleason score at diagnosis), and health literacy. Bivariate analyses were conducted to identify associations with patient knowledge and perceived importance of the GSS. The sample was generally well-educated (48% with a bachelor's degree or higher) and health literate (M = 12.9, SD = 2.2, range = 3-15). Despite this, patient knowledge of the GSS was low (M = 1.8, SD = 1.4, range = 1-4). Patients' understanding of the importance of the GSS was moderate (M = 2.8, SD = 1.0, range = 0-4) and was positively associated with GSS knowledge (p < .01). Additionally, GSS knowledge was negatively associated with years since biopsy (p < .05). Age and health literacy were positively associated with patients' perceived importance of the GSS (p < .05), but not with GSS knowledge. Patient knowledge is thus less than optimal and would benefit from enhanced communication to maximize shared treatment decision-making. Future studies are needed to explore the potential utility of a simplified Gleason grading system and improved patient-provider communication.

No abstract