[Erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy : patient information, contact persons, postoperative proerectile therapy]. / Erektile Dysfunktion nach radikaler Prostatektomie : Aufklärung, Ansprechpartner, postoperative proerektile Therapie.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative erectile dysfunction (ED) is one of the potential after-effects of radical prostatectomy. The aim of this study was to learn which caregivers inform the patients prior to the intervention about the risk of ED, which individuals the patients discuss this issue with, and whether the patients preoperatively consider use of a PDE5 inhibitor for proerectile therapy after the operation. METHODS: Using the IIEF-5 questionnaire, the preoperative erectile function of 110 patients was evaluated after the hospital admission interview. The patients were asked who had informed them about the risk of postoperative ED. They were also asked in whom they had confided to discuss this issue and whether they were prepared to undergo postoperative proerectile therapy with a PDE5 inhibitor. The patients were subsequently assigned to one of two groups: group I, consisting of those with a preoperative IIEF score > or = 21, or group II, those with a preoperative IIEF score <21. RESULTS: The answers given by groups I and II did not differ significantly. The median patient age was the same, 68, in both groups. In addition to being informed about postoperative ED by the hospital doctor on admission (100%), the patients were informed about this by the following individuals (results for group II in parentheses): board-certified urologist, 81.8% (74%); general practitioner (GP), 27.3%; partner, 12.1% (11.7%); self-help groups, 0% (2.6%); and friends, 3% (6.5%). Patients also discussed the risk of postoperative ED with the following individuals (results for group II in parentheses): local urologist, 66.7% (63.4%); partner, 45.5% (42.9%); hospital doctor, 39.4% (42.9%); GP, 21.2% (23.4%); friends, 9.1% (14.3); or no one, 3% (5.2%). Regarding whether patients were willing to undergo postoperative therapy using a PDE5 inhibitor, 36.4% in group I and 32.5% in group II said yes, 12.1% in group I and 11.7% in group II said no, and 51.5% in group I and 55.8% in group II were undecided. CONCLUSION: Irrespective of the patient's erectile status, the hospital doctor and the local urologist informed the patients about the risk of postoperative ED. Satisfactory information delivered by at least two people occurred in over 70% of all cases. The most frequent confidant of the patient for discussing this issue was his local urologist. Fewer than 50% of the patients discussed this topic with their partners. Possible reasons for underestimating the importance of sexual function could be the frequent taboo status of sexuality as a discussion topic in relationships, as well as preoperative distress. These circumstances should be taken into account by offering sufficient information, including that on the availability of postoperative proerectile therapy, for both the patient and his partner as early as possible, i.e., at the stage of choosing a treatment option.

[30 Years of sentinel lymph node diagnostic in penile carcinoma: development of a diagnostic procedure and current results]. / 30 Jahre Sentinel-Lymphknotendiagnostik beim Peniskarzinom : Evolution eines diagnostischen Verfahrens und eigene aktuelle Ergebnisse.

Cabanas, working 30 years ago, was the first to use the term "sentinel lymph node" in urology. His definition of the sentinel lymph node was based on typical anatomical patterns and therefore could not do justice to any individual variability in lymphatic drainage. This meant that application of the technique yielded high false-negative rates, and because of this it was largely abandoned. Dynamic visualization of lymphatic drainage by blue dye in melanoma patients resulted in a renaissance of the sentinel node concept in penile cancer in the mid-1990s. With constant improvements and standardization of the technique it proved possible to reduce the incidence of false-negative results from the initial 22% to 4.8%. This technique requires that specialists in urology, pathology, and nuclear medicine collaborate closely, and high standards are also essential in quality control.