ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT To evaluate the efficiency of an energy density of 0.05mj/mm2 of low intensity extracorporeal shockwave therapy (Li-ESWT) on erectile dysfunction (ED) patients.A total of 45 ED patients met the inclusion criteria, including 7 PDE5i responders and 38 nonresponders. All the patients have already been delivered 10000 shockwaves of total seven treatment points twice a week for 4 weeks. Simultaneously, questionnaires of International Index of Erectile Function-Erectile Function (IIEF-EF), Erectile Hard Score (EHS) and Minimal Clinical Important Differences (MCID) were evaluated for the efficiency and safety at 8th and 16th weeks.The changes in the IIEF-EF score by MCID suggested that Li-ESWT treatment was effective in 22 PDE5i nonresponders patients (58%) at 8th week. Then at 16th week the number of patients who were effectively treated increased to 27 (71%). Among PDE5i responders, 5 patients (71%) were effective base on MCID at 16th week. Among PDE5i nonresponders 22 patients (58%) achieved erection hard enough for vaginal penetration and increased to 27 (71%) patients at 16th week (EHS ≥3). Moreover, even 3 patients achieved EHS 4 in PDE5i nonresponders at 16th week. Among PDE5i responders, 4 of 7 patients reached EHS of 4 from EHS 3 at 16th week. Apart from this, Li-ESWT treatment was also effective in 9 patients (24%) in PDE5i nonresponders without follow-up PDE5i.Energy flux density (EFD) of 0.05 of Li-ESWT could improve the erectile function of ED patients with PDE5i response. In addition, EFD of 0.05 of Li-ESWT treatment could turn PDE5i nonresponders to responders.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Extracorporeal Shockwave Therapy , Erectile Dysfunction/therapy , Penile Erection , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
Abstract Objective: To assess the relationship between 5α-reductase inhibitors (5ARIs) and the risk of male breast cancer (MBC). Material and Methods: We systematically searched Medline via PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library Central Register up to May 2017 to identify published articles related to 5ARIs and the risk of MBC. Results: Summary effect estimates were calculated by a random-effect model, and tests for multivariable-unadjusted pooled risk ratios (RR) and heterogeneity, as well as the sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess publication bias. All four studies were conducted in a quality assessment according to the Newcastle Ottawa Scale system. The strength of association between 5ARIs and the prevalence of MBC was evaluated by using summarized unadjusted pooled RR with a 95% confidence interval [CI]. Four studies involving 595.776 participants, mean age range from 60 to 73.2 years old, were included in a meta-analysis, which produced a summary unadjusted RR of the risk of MBC for the treatment of 5ARIs of 1.16 (95% CI 0.85-1.58, P=0.36) and the multivariable-adjusted RR is 1.03, (95% CI 0.75-1.41, p=0.86). There was no heterogeneity among included studies (I2=0%, P=0.49). Estimates of total effects were generally consistent with the sensitivity. Conclusion: We did not observe a positive association between the use of 5ARIs and MBC. The small number of breast cancer cases exposed to 5ARIs and the lack of an association in our study suggest that the development of breast cancer should not influence the prescribing of 5ARIs therapy.