Dynamic infusion cavernosometry and cavernosography for classifying venous erectile dysfunction and its significance for individual treatment.

Background: The precise pathophysiology of venous erectile dysfunction (VED) was still unclear. Dynamic infusion cavernosometry and cavernosography (DICC) was the gold standard approach for the diagnoses of VED. However, a standard operative procedure of DICC was needed and it was unclear whether DICC could show promise in accurate assessment and treatment of VED. The aim of this study was to establish an optimized operation process of DICC and evaluate the efficacy of DICC in the diagnoses and therapy of VED.

Methods: One hundred and forty-seven VED patients identified by the color doppler duplex ultrasonography (CDDU) were included. Then the method of DICC was adopted to assess the severity of VED and all patients were divided into 4 groups, including (1) non-VED; (2) mild VED; (3) moderate VED and (4) severe VED. All patients received the treatment of psychotherapy. Drug therapy, the intervention embolism of corpus cavernosum and the implantation of penile prosthesis were applied if psychotherapy was ineffective for patients. The international index of erectile function (IIEF-5) scores of patients were collected and compared before and after treatment.

Results: IIEF-5 score of non-VED group after psychotherapy (19.35 ± 3.59) and drug therapy (23.31 ± 0.75) was higher than that before psychotherapy (15.30 ± 2.72, t = -4.31, P < 0.01) and drug therapy (16.62 ± 1.50, t = -19.13, P < 0.01). IIEF-5 scores of mild VED (18.25 ± 2.60) and moderate VED group (14.83 ± 4.17) after treatment was improved significantly by intervention embolism of corpus cavernosum when compared with those before treatment (mild: 15.50 ± 2.14, t = -2.31, P < 0.05; moderate: 11.83 ± 2.86, t = -1.45, P < 0.05). However, drug therapy and intervention embolism (IE) of corpus cavernosum showed poor effects on patients with moderate and severe VED patients (P > 0.05). IIEF-5 score of severe VED group was increased under the treatment of implantation of penile prosthesis (23.25 ± 0.71) compared with that before treatment (8.00 ± 0.39, t = -53.25, P < 0.05).

Conclusion: DICC was a valid diagnostic tool that could identify patients with VED. And DICC had great effect on the diagnosis and individual therapy for patients with VED in varying degrees. Moreover, the manipulation of DICC needed uniform standards.