Tokatli Z, Akand M, Yaman O, Gulpinar O, Anafarta K
Department of Urology, School of Medicine, University of Ankara, Sihhiye, Ankara, Turkey.
Int J Impot Res. 2006 Mar-Apr;18(2):186-9. doi: 10.1038/sj.ijir.3901390.
We tried to compare the parameters of nocturnal penile tumescence and rigidity (NPTR) testing with erectile function (EF) domain score of International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), which is used in diagnosis and determining the severity of erectile dysfunction (ED), and to assess the sufficiency of IIEF in the diagnosis of ED. A total of 90 men, mean age 46 years (24-75), presenting with ED to our clinic between January 2001 and March 2003 were included in the trial. All the men answered the standard IIEF (15 questions) forms and was divided into four groups as mild ED, moderate ED, severe ED and no ED according to the EF domain score that is obtained from 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 15th questions. Then NPTR testing with the RigiScan Plus monitoring device was performed for two consecutive nights on those men. The distribution of the six parameters of NPTR testing (number of erections, duration of erections, TAU base, RAU base, TAU tip, RAU tip) among the four groups and the correlation with IIEF-EF domain score were evaluated. Additionally, the distribution of the risk factors (diabetes mellitus, hypertension, atherosclerotic heart disease, dyslipidemia and smoking) was analyzed both among the four groups and in each group. According to IIEF-EF domain scores of 90 patients, 16 (18%) had severe ED, 21 (23%) moderate ED, 41 (46%) mild ED and 12 (13%) no ED. There was no statistically significant difference between the risk factors among the men in these groups (P > 0.05). When the IIEF-EF domain scores were compared with parameters of NPTR testing, no statistically significant difference was obtained among ED groups (mild, moderate, severe) (P > 0.05). However, we observed a statistically significant difference between three ED groups and no ED group (P < 0.05). If NPTR testing is considered as a gold standard test, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of IIEF-EF domain score in ED diagnosis are 100, 17.9, 29.4 and 100% respectively. In conclusion, we did not observe a clinical correlation between IIEF-EF domain scores and NPTR parameters in the whole population; however, we observed that if IIEF-EF domain scores were normal, NPTR parameters were also normal. In other words, we can say that if the initial IIEF-EF domain scores are normal, then we do not have to perform NPTR testing. This could be helpful to make a cost-effective diagnosis.
我们试图比较夜间阴茎勃起肿胀和硬度(NPTR)测试参数与国际勃起功能指数(IIEF)的勃起功能(EF)领域评分,后者用于勃起功能障碍(ED)的诊断和确定其严重程度,并评估IIEF在ED诊断中的充分性。2001年1月至2003年3月期间到我们诊所就诊的90名患有ED的男性被纳入该试验,其平均年龄为46岁(24 - 75岁)。所有男性均填写了标准IIEF(15个问题)表格,并根据从第1、2、3、4、5和15个问题中获得的EF领域评分分为轻度ED、中度ED、重度ED和无ED四组。然后使用RigiScan Plus监测设备对这些男性连续两晚进行NPTR测试。评估了NPTR测试的六个参数(勃起次数、勃起持续时间、阴茎根部周径、阴茎根部硬度、阴茎头部周径、阴茎头部硬度)在四组中的分布情况以及与IIEF - EF领域评分的相关性。此外,还分析了四组之间以及每组中危险因素(糖尿病、高血压、动脉粥样硬化性心脏病、血脂异常和吸烟)的分布情况。根据90名患者的IIEF - EF领域评分,16名(18%)患有重度ED,21名(23%)患有中度ED,41名(46%)患有轻度ED,12名(13%)无ED。这些组中男性的危险因素之间无统计学显著差异(P > 0.05)。当将IIEF - EF领域评分与NPTR测试参数进行比较时,ED组(轻度、中度、重度)之间未获得统计学显著差异(P > 0.05)。然而,我们观察到三个ED组与无ED组之间存在统计学显著差异(P < 0.05)。如果将NPTR测试视为金标准测试,IIEF - EF领域评分在ED诊断中的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为100%、17.9%、29.4%和