Abstract Objective Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a common complication after radical prostatectomy and can significantly affect patient’s quality of life. However, discrepancies may exist between patient-reported outcomes and medical record documentation. To assess the patient’s perception of ED compared to what is recorded in medical charts following radical prostatectomy. Methods This cohort study included 67 patients who underwent radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer at a public hospital in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. The International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) questionnaire was administered postoperatively, followed by interview and patient responses were compared to medical record entries. Results Mean age was 68 ± 6.37 years. ISUP 2 was observed in 52%, ISUP 3 in 34%, ISUP 4 in 12% and ISUP 5 in 1,5% of the patients. Radical prostatectomy alone was performed in 58.2% of cases, 29.8% received radiotherapy with hormonal blockade, 4.47% had radiotherapy alone, and 7.4% received hormonal blockade only. IIEF-5 score among patients was distributed as follows: no ED in 4.47% of cases, mild ED in 7.5%, mild to moderate ED in 19.4%, moderate ED in 26.8%, and severe ED in 41.7%. A total of 67% of patients reported that physicians did not inquire about ED during postoperative follow-up. Regarding ED treatment (n = 62), 38% were not receiving treatment, while 61.2% were undergoing therapy. In the medical records, 67.16% of patients had no documentation regarding sexual activity, 1.4% had no ED and were not using phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors (PDE5i), 7.4% had preserved erections with PDE5i use and 23.88% had moderate to severe ED recorded. Conclusion Most patients had moderate to severe ED, but sexual health was often overlooked in follow-up. Many were untreated, and documentation was frequently absent, highlighting the need for better assessment and management of sexual function post-treatment. Financing No conflict.
Bellandi et al. (Sun,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: