Unfortunately, some patients may have an overly simplified understanding of the role of PDE5 inhibitors in ED management. Such patients may not expect or be willing to undergo a long evaluation and testing process to obtain a better understanding of their sexual problem, and they may be less likely to involve their partner in discussing their sexual relationship with the physician. They may expect to obtain medications through a phone call to their doctor or even over the Internet, with minimal or no physician contact at all.
If a trial of oral ED therapy and withdrawal of offending medications prove to be ineffective in restoring erectile function, it is appropriate for most primary care practitioners to consider referral to a specialist for additional evaluation and discussion of alternative treatment options. These include intracavernous injection therapy, vacuum constriction devices, intraurethral therapy, and possible surgery.
If it is determined that ED is a problem, the patient evaluation should include a detailed sexual and medical history and a physical exam. In particular, it is important to evaluate the ED within the context of ejaculatory problems. There is a strong interplay between premature ejaculation (PE) and ED, with about a third of ED patients reporting PE. The relationship between the PE and ED is bidirectional and successful treatment of one often requires treatment of the other.14
Since endothelial dysfunction, CVD and ED are closely associated in epidemiological studies, the question for clinicians is whether to recommend the man presenting with ED undergo a cardiovascular (CV) evaluation. Clearly, based on numerous studies, ED can be considered at least a ‘marker’ for possible further vascular disease or CVD.15 In their report, Vlachopoulos and coworkers make the point that the man presenting with ED, the clinician, is offered an opportunity to attempt to improve the health of the man by addressing lifestyle modification, and consider further vascular evaluation owing to the clear relationship between endothelial dysfunction, ED and CVD.19
Clinical studies have suggested that these devices are effective and acceptable to a large number of patients with ED of varying causes, including psychogenic erectile failure. These devices are safe and can restore a man’s ability to achieve penetrative intercourse, with one study suggesting nearly 95% success with adequate instruction and support.30 However, satisfaction with this treatment modality typically wanes with time, as patients report dissatisfaction with how cumbersome or unnatural the devices are to use, hinging or buckling of the erection with thrusting, and dissatisfaction with the fact that the erection is ischemic and therefore cold, which can be off-putting to the partner.
Prior to the introduction of PDE5i in 1998, intracavernosal vasoactive medications and penile implant surgery were the mainstays of treatment. Penile implant surgery involves placement of inflatable or malleable rods within the corpora cavernosa to provide rigidity for intercourse. Choice of which implant to place usually depends upon manual dexterity and function of the patient, patient anatomy, physician preference and surgical approach.