【尿道内前列腺素E1用于治疗勃起功能障碍的位置】。

E Amar
{"title":"【尿道内前列腺素E1用于治疗勃起功能障碍的位置】。","authors":"E Amar","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Transurethral alprostadil (MUSE) is an effective and safe treatment of erectile dysfunction. Never the less, the result after its exit on the US market two years ago were not as good as the investigational studies which claimed around 60% of success rate. In the literature success rate were between 35% and 40% all together. The MUSE had a better acceptance than the intra-cavernous injection despite a lower success rate (40% vs 75%). Since sildenafil came on the market, it seems that the place of MUSE is reduced because comparative studies give better results for sildenafil than MUSE (70% vs 40%) and of course with a better acceptance. Never the less there are absolute and relative counter-indications to the sildenafil which could benefit to the treatment by MUSE. All the comparative studies, IIC, vs MUSE and sildenafil vs MUSE will be studied in this article. In conclusion MUSE should be used as an alternative and should remain an effective tool that must be available to all physicians dealing with erectile dysfunction, perhaps using new formula with a combination of alprostadil with an alpha-blocker.</p>","PeriodicalId":79332,"journal":{"name":"Contraception, fertilite, sexualite (1992)","volume":"27 7-8","pages":"548-52"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Place of intra-urethral prostaglandin E1 for the treatment of erectile dysfunction].\",\"authors\":\"E Amar\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Transurethral alprostadil (MUSE) is an effective and safe treatment of erectile dysfunction. Never the less, the result after its exit on the US market two years ago were not as good as the investigational studies which claimed around 60% of success rate. In the literature success rate were between 35% and 40% all together. The MUSE had a better acceptance than the intra-cavernous injection despite a lower success rate (40% vs 75%). Since sildenafil came on the market, it seems that the place of MUSE is reduced because comparative studies give better results for sildenafil than MUSE (70% vs 40%) and of course with a better acceptance. Never the less there are absolute and relative counter-indications to the sildenafil which could benefit to the treatment by MUSE. All the comparative studies, IIC, vs MUSE and sildenafil vs MUSE will be studied in this article. In conclusion MUSE should be used as an alternative and should remain an effective tool that must be available to all physicians dealing with erectile dysfunction, perhaps using new formula with a combination of alprostadil with an alpha-blocker.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79332,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contraception, fertilite, sexualite (1992)\",\"volume\":\"27 7-8\",\"pages\":\"548-52\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contraception, fertilite, sexualite (1992)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contraception, fertilite, sexualite (1992)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

经尿道前列地尔(MUSE)是一种安全有效的治疗勃起功能障碍的方法。尽管如此,两年前退出美国市场后的结果并不像声称成功率约为60%的调查研究那样好。在文献中,成功率在35%到40%之间。尽管成功率较低(40% vs 75%),但MUSE的接受度优于海绵内注射。自从西地那非上市以来,MUSE的地位似乎降低了,因为比较研究给出了西地那非比MUSE更好的结果(70% vs 40%),当然也有更好的接受度。然而,对西地那非有绝对和相对的反指征,这可能有利于MUSE的治疗。所有的比较研究,IIC与MUSE和西地那非与MUSE将在本文中进行研究。综上所述,缪斯应该作为一种替代药物,并且仍然是一种有效的工具,所有治疗勃起功能障碍的医生都可以使用,也许可以使用前列地尔和α受体阻滞剂联合使用的新配方。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[Place of intra-urethral prostaglandin E1 for the treatment of erectile dysfunction].

Transurethral alprostadil (MUSE) is an effective and safe treatment of erectile dysfunction. Never the less, the result after its exit on the US market two years ago were not as good as the investigational studies which claimed around 60% of success rate. In the literature success rate were between 35% and 40% all together. The MUSE had a better acceptance than the intra-cavernous injection despite a lower success rate (40% vs 75%). Since sildenafil came on the market, it seems that the place of MUSE is reduced because comparative studies give better results for sildenafil than MUSE (70% vs 40%) and of course with a better acceptance. Never the less there are absolute and relative counter-indications to the sildenafil which could benefit to the treatment by MUSE. All the comparative studies, IIC, vs MUSE and sildenafil vs MUSE will be studied in this article. In conclusion MUSE should be used as an alternative and should remain an effective tool that must be available to all physicians dealing with erectile dysfunction, perhaps using new formula with a combination of alprostadil with an alpha-blocker.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
[Theory and practice of daily prescription and gynecologic consultation for treatment of hyperandrogenism. Indications and contraindications]. [What remains of the postcoital test?]. [Are cervicovaginal smears feasible in women over 65 years under hormone replacement therapy?]. [Should cytological screening for cervical cancer be stopped after menopause?]. [Diabetes before pregnancy, apropos of 143 cases].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1