05) 1 94(sd 0 18)*   Abnormal   3 (30%) 2 (28 6%) 1 (14 3%) 3 (75

05) 1.94(sd 0.18)*   Abnormal   3 (30%) 2 (28.6%) 1 (14.3%) 3 (75%) 1 (10%) Normal   7 (70%) 5 (71.4%) 6 (85.7) 1 (25%) 9 (90%) Not evaluated FK228 cost   0 3 3 6 0 * p ≤ 0.04 SR = sacral reflex PEP = pudendal somatosensory evoked

potentials MEP = motor evoked potentials SSR = sympathetic skin responses Statistical analysis was performed by means of the two-tailed Student’s t test for paired observations and k concordance test. Results Overall 59.6% of the patients submitted to resection had sexual impotence. In the control group this complication occurred in only 16.4% (p ≤ 0.0001) (tables 1 – 2). Abnormal values were observed in 33.3% of the patients submitted to the SR test (p = 0.05), in 21.7% of the patients submitted to PEPs, in 33.3% of the patients submitted to MEPs and in 71.4% of the patients submitted to SSR (p ≤ 0.03), showing a higher incidence of E7080 alterations than in the control group. The mean latencies

of the SR, PEPs, MEPs and SSRs were also longer (SSRs p ≤ 0.009) (tables 1 – 2). In the 10 patients studied both pre and post-surgery impotence occurred in 6 of them and the mean latencies of SSRs were longer after operation (p ≤ 0.04) (tables 3 – 4). In the 10 patients studied pre and post chemoradiation impotence occurred in 1 patient only, showing the mild effect of these treatments on sexual function (tables 5 – 6) Discussion Many authors consider neurophysiological selleck chemical testing unreliable to study sexual dysfunctions. In a series of patients with sexual and urogenital complaints Delodovici found abnormal PEPs in a very small proportion of patients (8%), according to the hypothesis of a predominant involvement of small fibers in these patients [15]. In a report of the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology, the sensitivity and specificity

of the PEPs in male sexual dysfunction is considered scarce. This test must therefore be correlated with other information Ketotifen to evaluate the impotent patient [16]. In a patient with partial resection of the presacral nerves and a radical cystectomy, Opsomer observed normal PEPs and alterations of the MEPs and the SR [17]. Rossini emphasizes the intersubject and intrasubject variability of SSRs, representing a severe limitation to the clinical applications of this test. This author suggests estimating the latency differences and amplitude ratio between the two body sides [18]. Ertekin emphasizes the usefulness of PEPs in spinal cord/cauda equina injuries and the superiority of the SR in diabetic impotence and in cauda/conus lesions.[19] In a study of 30 men with erectile impotence, Kunesck recommends the use of various tests for autonomic dysfunction [20], while Opsomer suggests employing a combination of cortical evoked potentials and sacral latency testing to accurately locate the lesion level.

Comments are closed.