Medical personnel viewing the visitor of or in discussion


Prostate cancer (PC) is one of the most common malignant tumors in the middle-aged and elderly male population, occupying the 4th place in terms of cancer morbidity in Russia [1]. In the past decade, the PC incidence rate has increased by more than 120.5% [2].

Surgery is known to be the main and most widely used method for treating localized prostate cancer. Surgical treatment provides onco-specific survival compared to watchful waiting [3].

According to the clinical guidelines of the European Association of Urology, radical prostatectomy (RPE) is a standard therapy for localized prostate cancer if the life expectancy of a patient exceeds 10 and more years [4, 5].

The problem of increasing the life expectancy of patients after RPE is inseparably associated with the problem of improving the quality of life. It has been established that RPE entails a number of complications that affect the quality of life, such as lowered libido, erectile dysfunction, shortening and bending of the penis, ejaculation problems [6, 7].

Sexual function recovery after RPE has been studied for a long time. However, despite the published findings, neither national nor foreign authors have reached a unanimous opinion concerning the state of erectile function after RPE [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]. A significant influence of erectile function on quality of life causes the necessity and urgency of further investigation of the erectile function state in patients who have undergone RPE [14, 15, 16, 17].

RESEARCH GOAL: evaluating the possibility of combination treatment for sexual function in patients after radical prostatectomy to treat localized prostate cancer as a factor in increasing quality of life.


The present research includes 60 men of the average age of 64.6±4,7 years with verified localized prostate cancer, who underwent treatment in the urology department of ФГБУ ГНЦ ФМБЦ им. А.И. Бурназяна ФМБА России , Moscow.

All research studies with the participation of patients complied with the ethical standards of the Bioethical Committee developed in accordance with the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki “Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects”. Patients signed a voluntary informed consent to participate in the research study.

The research entry criteria were men not older than 70 years old having no heavy somatic pathology or diabetes and being interested in preservation of sexual function after the surgery.

In the course of the study, the International Index of Erectile Function of all the patients was evaluated in accordance with IIEF-5, and the patients’ quality of life was assessed in accordance with the QOL (Quality of Life) questionnaire. Also, the length of non-erect penis (L) of all the patients was measured three times and averaged, and the penile rigidity was evaluated according to the penile erection hardness scale (EHS) (table 1).

Table 1. The penile erection hardness scale (EHS)

1 2 3 4
The penis is increased in size but not hard enough. The penis is hard but not hard enough for penetration. The penis is hard enough for penetration but still not completely hard. The penis is completely hard and fully rigid.

Control measurements were carried out before the surgery, on the 7th, 30th and 90th day after the surgical intervention.

Initially, none of the patients participating in the research study had any significant differences in clinico-anamnestic features. According to the research design, patients were arbitrarily divided into three groups using a random number table. The patients in the first group (control group, n=20) did not receive any specific preventive medication for preserving penile length and erectile function. The second group of patients (n=20) took PDE-5 inhibitors daily in a dose of 5 mg during 3 months in the postoperative period; the third group of patients (n=20) combined the intake of PDE-5 inhibitor in a dose of 5 mg with the use of a vacuum extender for three months. The vacuum apparatus PeniMaster®PRO was used as an extender in the research study, the patients of the third group carried the extender daily for not less than three hours a day during three months.

The obtained data were statistically processed using the STATISTICA 6.0 software. The normal distribution hypothesis was checked with the aid of the Shapiro-Wilk test. An average value (M) and a standard deviation (SD) are given for each of the continuous quantities exhibiting normal distribution.

Values of p<0.05 were statistically significant. The three groups were compared using the N-criterion of the Kruskal-Wallis test; at p<0.05, a paired comparison of groups was used employing the Mann-Whitney test with the application of the Bonferroni adjustment. The dynamics parameters were evaluated using the Wilcoxon criteria.


Read more



1. Bosetti C., Bertuccio P., Chatenoud L. et al. Trends in mortality from urologic cancars in Europe, 1970-2008. Eur Urol 2011;60:1–15.
2. Analiz uronefrologičeskoj zabolevaemosti v Rossiskoj Federacii po dannym oficialnoj statistiki / Apolihin O.I., Sivkov A.V., Bešliev D.A., Solnzeva T.V., Komarova V.A.// Ėksperimentalnaâ i kliničeskaâ urologiâ. Nr. 2010.
3. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Filen F, et al; Scandinavian Prostate Cancer Group Study Number 4. Radical prostatectomy versus watchful waiting in localized prostate cancer: the Scandinavian prostate cancer group-4 randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008 aug; 100(16):1144–54.
4. Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT, Eastham JA. Radical prostatectomy: long-term cancer control and recovery of sexual and urinary function («trifecta»). Urology 2005 Nov;66(5Suppl):83–94.
5. EAU Guidelines on Prostate Cancer// 2014.
6. Salonia A. et al. Preservation and management of prostatectomy sexual dysfunction Part2: Recovery and preservation of erectile function, sexual desire, and orgasmic function. Eur Urol 2012; 62:273–86.
7. P.V. Glybočko, I.P. Matûhov, Û.G. Alâev, N.D. Ahvlediani, Ž.Š. Inoâtov „Seksual’naâ funkciâ pacientov, perenesših radikal’nujû prostaėktomiû: sovremennyj wzglâd na problemu”, Žurnal urologiâ Nr. 2, S. 112–116, Moskau 2015.
8. Maso E.B., Gamidov S.I., Ovčinnikov R.I., Iremašvili V.V. Novye aspekty patogeneza, profilaktiki i lečeniâ ėrektil’noj disfunkcii u bol’nyh posle radikal’noj prostatėktomii CONSILIUM MEDICUM, 2004 BAND 6 Nr. 7.
9. Puškar D.Û., Bormotin A.V., Govorov A.V. Lečenie ėrektilnoj disfunkcii u pacientov, perenesših radikal’nuû pozadilonnuû porostatėktomiû, s ispol’zovaniem ingibitorov fosfodiesterazy 5 tipa. Kačestvo žizni. Medicina.-2007.-5.- S. 36–41.
10. Roûk R.V. Optimisaciâ metodov diagnostiki i korrekcii osložnenij radikal’noj prostatėktomii na soiskanie učenoj stepeni kandidata medicinskih nauk. RUDN-2007.
11. Sitnikov N.V. Profilaktika osložnenij i rannââ reabilitaciâ bol’nyh posle radikal’noj prostatėktomii dissertaciâ na soiskanie učenoj stepeni doktora medicinskih nauk. FGU 3 CVKG 2008.
12. Veliev E.I., Vanin A.F., Kotov S.V., Šišlo V.K. Sovremennye aspekty patofisiologii i profilaktiki ėrektilnoj disfunkcii i kavernosnogo fibrosa posle radikal’noj prostatėktomii. Urologiâ.-2009.Nr. 2-S.46–51.
13. Kotov S.V. Profilaktika kavernoznogo fibroza polse nervosberegaûŝej radikalnoj prostatėktomii: dissertazija na soiskanie učenoj stepeni kandidata medicinskih nauk. RMAPO 2009. S. 105.
14. Ficarra V, Novara G, Galfano A, Stringari C, Baldassarre R, Cavalleri S et al. Twelve-month selfreported quality of life after retropubic radical prostatectomy: a prospective study with Rand 36-Item Health Survey (Short Form-36). BJU Int 2006; 97: 274.
15. Davison BJ, So AI, Goldenberg SL. Quality of life, sexual function and decisional regret at 1 year after surgical treatment for localized prostate cancer. BJU Int. 2007 Oct; 100(4):780-5. Epub 2007 Jun 19.
16. Rakul S.A., S.B. Petrow, M.D. Ivanova, N.N. Petrova Aprobaciâ „Universal’nogo oprosnika kačestva žizni bol’nyh rakom predstatel’noj železy“//Onkourologiâ: ežhekvartal’nyj naučno-praktičeskij žurnal.-2009.-Nr. 2.-S. 64–73.
17. Nâhin V.A. Funkcional’nye rezul’taty i kačestvo žizni pacientov posle radikal’noj pozadilonnoj prostatėktomii dissertaciâ na soiskanie učenoj stepeni kandidata medicinskih nauk. RMAPO 2007. S. 182.
18. Briganti A., Gallina A., Suardi N., Capitanio U., Tutolo M., Bianchi M., Passoni N., Salonia A., Colombo R., Di Girolamo V., Guazzoni G., Rigatti P., Montorsi P. Predicting erectile function recovery after bilateral nerve sparing radical prostatectomy: A proposal of a novel preoperative risk stratification. J Sex Med 2010; 7:2521–31.
19. McCullogh A. Penile change following radical prostatectomy: Size, smooth muscle atrophy and curve. Curr Urol Rep 2008; 9:492–9.
20. Gontero P., Galzerano M., Bartoletti R., Magnani C., Tizzani A., Frea B., Mondaini N. New insights into the pathogenesis of penile shortening after radical prostatectomy and the role of postoperative sexual function. J Urol 2007; 178:602–7.
21. Kohler TS, Pedro R., Hendlin K., Utz W., Ugarte R., Reddy P., Makhlouf A., Ryndin I., Canales BK., Weiland D., Nakib N., Ramani A., Anderson JK., Monga M.A. Pilot study on the early use of the vacuum erection device after radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2007; 100:858–62.
22. Sexual Rehabilitation and Cancer Survivorship: A State of Art Review of Current Literature and Management Strategies in Male Sexual Dysfunction Among Prostate Cancer Survivors. J Sex Med 2013; 10 (suppl 1):102–111.
Penimaster Pro Studie
M. V. Shamin1, E. V. Pomeshkin1, P. S. Kyzlasov2, V. Ya. Farbirovich1, R. R. Pogosyan2, V. P. Sergeev2 MBHI (Municipal Budgetary Healthcare Institution) 
“Municipal Clinical Hospital No. 3 M. A. Podgorbunsky”, Kemerovo, ФГБУ ГНЦ ФМБЦ им. А.И. Бурназяна ФМБА России [(Federal State Budgetary Institution State Research Center Federal Medical Biophysical Center) A. I. Burnazyan FMBA (Federal Medical-Biological Agency) of Russia], Moscow2