Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Vacuum erection device for erectile function rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy: which is the correct schedule? Results from a systematic, scoping review

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 36, pages 194–200 (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Vacuum erection device (VED), for its capacity to improve the peak flow and elasticity of cavernous arteries, is a well-known tool to improve recovery of erectile function (EF) after radical prostatectomy. Aim of this study is to compare the different therapeutic schemes proposed in literature to find the most effective timing for VED treatment and to evaluate its efficacy alone or associated with phosphodiesterase 5 inhibitors (PDE5i). We performed a systematic review of Literature in October 2022 using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Controlled Register of Trials to retrieve all articles dealing with EF rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy (excluding non-English papers, reviews, or meeting abstracts). Patients were divided among those receiving VED alone or combined with other treatments. Study outcomes were compared dividing them between those with follow-up shorter or longer than 12 months. Sixteen papers were included according to selection criteria. Among them, seven were randomized-controlled trials, five were prospective observational studies and four were retrospective. VED alone was evaluated in eight articles, while the remaining papers evaluated the combination of VED with PDE5i. Regarding VED therapeutic protocol, 7/16 studies used it daily. Rehabilitation protocol lasted less than 1 year in 4 studies, up to 12 months in 6 studies and more than 1 year in 6 studies. All the studies show improvement in International Index of Erectile Function Questionnaire (IIEF-5), conservation of penile length and satisfactory intercourses when compared to controls. VED results appear to increase when patients were addressed to VED-dedicated programs to enhance their compliance with the device.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The full text of all articles cited in this review have been read and assessed by the Authors. Data are available through the Reference section.

References

  1. Parker C, Castro E, Fizazi K, Heidenreich A, Ost P, Procopio G, et al. Prostate cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:1119–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Walsh PC, Donker PJ. Impotence following radical prostatectomy: insight into etiology and prevention. J Urol. 1982;128:492.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sanda MG, Cadeddu JA, Kirkby E, Chen RC, Crispino T, Fontanarosa J, et al. Clinically localized prostate cancer: AUA/ASTRO/SUO guideline. Part II: recommended approaches and details of specific care options. J Urol. 2018;199:990–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Moretti TBC, Magna LA, Reis LO. Surgical results and complications for open, laparoscopic, and robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: a reverse systematic review. Eur Urol Open Sci. 2022;44:150–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Moschovas MC, Patel V. Neurovascular bundle preservation in robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: how I do it after 15.000 cases. Int Braz J Urol. 2022;48:212–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vis AN, van den Bergh RCN, van der Poel HG, Mottrie A, Stricker PD, Graefen M, et al. Selection of patients for nerve sparing surgery in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. BJUI Compass. 2021;3:6–18.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Rubilotta E, Gubbiotti M, Balzarro M, Castellani D, Pirola GM, Gemma L, et al. Current trends in erectile rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy: Results from a worldwide survey. Andrologia. 2022;54:e14506.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yu Ko WF, Degner LF, Hack TF, Schroeder G. Penile length shortening after radical prostatectomy: men’s responses. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2010;14:160–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vasconcelos JS, Figueiredo RT, Nascimento FL, Damião R, da Silva EA. The natural history of penile length after radical prostatectomy: a long-term prospective study. Urology. 2012;80:1293–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Yuan J, Hoang AN, Romero CA, Lin H, Dai Y, Wang R. Vacuum therapy in erectile dysfunction-science and clinical evidence. Int J Impot Res. 2010;22:211–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Albaugh J, Adamic B, Chang C, Nicholas K, Joshua A. Adherence and barriers to penile rehabilitation over 2 years following radical prostatectomy. BMC Urol. 2019;19:89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Baniel J, Israilov S, Segenreich E, Livne PM. Comparative evaluation of treatments for erectile dysfunction in patients with prostate cancer after radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2001;88:58–62.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Osadchiy V, Eleswarapu SV, Mills SA, Pollard ME, Reiter RE, Mills JN. Efficacy of a preprostatectomy multi-modal penile rehabilitation regimen on recovery of postoperative erectile function. Int J Impot Res. 2020;32:323–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Raina R, Agarwal A, Ausmundson S, Lakin M, Nandipati KC, Montague DK, et al. Early use of vacuum constriction device following radical prostatectomy facilitates early sexual activity and potentially earlier return of erectile function. Int J Impot Res. 2006;18:77–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Raina R, Agarwal A, Allamaneni SS, Lakin MM, Zippe CD. Sildenafil citrate and vacuum constriction device combination enhances sexual satisfaction in erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy. Urology. 2005;65:360–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Raina R, Pahlajani G, Agarwal A, Jones S, Zippe C. Long-term potency after early use of a vacuum erection device following radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2010;106:1719–22.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rujinithiwat S, Usawachintachit M, Panumatrassamee K, Apirak S, Kavirach T. Early penile rehabilitation with a vacuum erectile device in patients undergoing robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy: a randomized trial. Urol Sci. 2021;32:77–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhang M, Che JZ, Liu YD, Wang HX, Huang YP, Lv XG, et al. A prospective randomized controlled study on scheduled PDE5i and vacuum erectile devices in the treatment of erectile dysfunction after nerve sparing prostatectomy. Asian J Androl. 2022;24:473–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Basal S, Wambi C, Acikel C, Gupta M, Badani K. Optimal strategy for penile rehabilitation after robot-assisted radical prostatectomy based on preoperative erectile function. BJU Int. 2013;111:658–65.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dalkin BL, Christopher BA. Preservation of penile length after radical prostatectomy: early intervention with a vacuum erection device. Int J Impot Res. 2007;19:501–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Engel JD. Effect on sexual function of a vacuum erection device post-prostatectomy. Can J Urol. 2011;18:5721–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Gontero P, Fontana F, Zitella A, Montorsi F, Frea B. A prospective evaluation of efficacy and compliance with a multistep treatment approach for erectile dysfunction in patients after non-nerve sparing radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2005;95:359–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jones P, Sandoval Barba H, Johnson MI, Soomro N, Robson W, Ferguson J, et al. Erectile dysfunction after robotic radical prostatectomy: real-life impact of vacuum erection device clinic. J Clin Urol. 2021;14:325–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kimura M, Caso JR, Bañez LL, Koontz BF, Gerber L, Senocak C, et al. Predicting participation in and successful outcome of a penile rehabilitation programme using a phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor with a vacuum erection device after radical prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2012;110:E931–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Köhler TS, Pedro R, Hendlin K, Utz W, Ugarte R, Reddy P, et al. A pilot study on the early use of the vacuum erection device after radical retropubic prostatectomy. BJU Int. 2007;100:858–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nason GJ, McNamara F, Twyford M, O’Kelly F, White S, Dunne E, et al. Efficacy of vacuum erectile devices (VEDs) after radical prostatectomy: the initial Irish experience of a dedicated VED clinic. Int J Impot Res. 2016;28:205–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Yuen W, Witherspoon L, Wu E, Wong J, Sheikholeslami S, Bentley J, et al. Sexual rehabilitation recommendations for prostate cancer survivors and their partners from a biopsychosocial Prostate Cancer Supportive Care Program. Support Care Cancer. 2022;30:1853–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Feng D, Tang C, Liu S, Yang Y, Han P, Wei W. Current management strategy of treating patients with erectile dysfunction after radical prostatectomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Impot Res. 2022;34:18–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mehr J, Santarelli S, Green TP, Beetz J, Panuganti S, Wang R. Emerging roles of penile traction therapy and vacuum erectile devices. Sex Med Rev. 2022;10:421–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Sultana A, Grice P, Vukina J, Pearce I, Modgil V. Indications and characteristics of penile traction and vacuum erection devices. Nat Rev Urol. 2022;19:84–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, San Giuseppe Hospital, IRCCS Multimedica, Milano, Italy

    Giacomo Maria Pirola, Angelo Naselli & Andrea Guarneri

  2. Maternal Infant and Urologic Sciences, Policlinico Umberto I Hospital, “Sapienza” University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Martina Maggi

  3. Department of Urology, Usl Toscana Sud Est, San Donato Hospital, Arezzo, Italy

    Marilena Gubbiotti

  4. Department of Urology, A.O.U.I. Verona University, Verona, Italy

    Emanuele Rubilotta

  5. Department of Surgery, S.H. Ho Urology Center, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Teoh Jeremy Yuen‑Chun

  6. Department of Urology, Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore

    Vineet Gauhar

  7. Department of Urology, University Hospital “Ospedali Riuniti” and Polytechnic University of Marche Region, Ancona, Italy

    Daniele Castellani

Authors
  1. Giacomo Maria Pirola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Angelo Naselli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martina Maggi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marilena Gubbiotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Emanuele Rubilotta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Teoh Jeremy Yuen‑Chun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Andrea Guarneri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Vineet Gauhar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Daniele Castellani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Study design: GMP and AN; Article screening and selection: GMP, DC, JYT, and VG; Manuscript drafting: GMP, MM, MG, ER, and AG; Manuscript revision: GMP, AG, and DC. Supervision: GMP, AN, and DC.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Giacomo Maria Pirola.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

All the authors have made a substantial contribution to the information or material submitted for publication, have read and approved the final manuscript and have no substantial direct or indirect commercial financial interest associated with publishing the article.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pirola, G.M., Naselli, A., Maggi, M. et al. Vacuum erection device for erectile function rehabilitation after radical prostatectomy: which is the correct schedule? Results from a systematic, scoping review. Int J Impot Res 36, 194–200 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-023-00700-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-023-00700-w

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links