ABSTRACT
Introduction & Objectives: In the last two decades, several therapeutic schemes have been proposed for erectile rehabilitation (ER) after radical prostatectomy (RP), but none has been standardized or validated due to the lack of high-level evidence in the Literature. We performed an international Survey focused on the current worldwide approach to ER, highlighting the contact and divergent aspects. Materials & Methods: We purposed an online Survey between July and December 2020 using email lists and Twitter, aiming to evaluate the ER protocols after RP performed by urologists and andrologists in daily practice. The following sections were investigated: 1) Demographics;2) Number and type of RP performed;3) Type and schedule, timing and duration of ER erectile programs;4) Standard treatment protocol. The specialists were contacted with the support of Confederación Americana de Urología (CAU), Urological SOcial MEdia (UroSoMe) Working Group, Functional Urology- Techno Urology- Research (FUTURe) Group and by a dedicated uro-andrologists spaces on Twitter platform of iTRUE Group. Results: The Survey was completed by 518 responders from 52 worldwide countries. The main criteria to candidate patients for ER were nerve sparing surgery (72.8%), lack of significant comorbidities (66.4%), patient’s request (55.4%), valid pre-operative EF (55%), age (48.1%), and partner’s willing (19.1%). Surgical techniques reported were: 38.9% open RP, 22.9% video laparoscopic RP, 38.2% robot- assisted RP. There were no significant differences (p>0.05) among the main surgical techniques and the time of EF recovery beginning, protocol and duration. The use of specific ER protocols was reported by 61.4%. The beginning of ER was reported by 33% of responders at catheter removal, after one month from surgery by 22%, and before RP by 15%. PDE5i were more frequently used as first line treatment (99.4%). Tadalafil 20 mg was the most prescribed in monotherapy, prescribed daily (48.2%) or 2-3 times/week (46%). PGE1 intra-cavernosal injection (67.9%) was the second more common prescription in monotherapy, followed by the association of PDE5i and vacuum device (29.6%). A minority of specialists 44/518 (8.5%) recommended low intensity shock wave therapy, while 63/518 (12.2%) proposed this in association to other therapies. The duration of ER was: in 16.2% <6 months, in 39% between 6 and 11 months;in 31.9% between 12 and 18 months;in 9.2% between 19-24 months, and in 3.7% >24 months. In case of first-line failure, the majority of the responders shifted to another treatment after at least 3 months (71%). During COVID-19 outbreak, the 37.4% of responders did not perform EF recovery consultations, while 26.8% had normal consultations, and 35.7% used telemedicine. Conclusions: This Survey showed an inhomogeneous approach to ER, reflecting the lack of high-level evidence on this topic. A worldwide accepted guideline on ER is therefore needed.