Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Neurogenic Erectile Dysfunction. Where Do We Stand?

Thomas C., Konstantinidis C.

Narrative Review on Spinal Cord Injury, Neuroinflammation, published in Medicines (Basel) (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Medicines (Basel) (2021)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
33430218
PMCID
PMC7825654
DOI
10.3390/medicines8010003
Citations
23

Abstract (original English)

Erectile Dysfunction (ED) is the persistent inability to attain and maintain an erection sufficient to permit satisfactory sexual performance, causing tremendous effects on both patients and their partners. The pathophysiology of ED remains a labyrinth. The underlying mechanisms of ED may be vasculogenic, neurogenic, anatomical, hormonal, drug-induced and/or psychogenic. Neurogenic ED consists of a large cohort of ED, accounting for about 10% to 19% of all cases. Its diversity does not allow an in-depth clarification of all the underlying mechanisms nor a "one size fits all" therapeutical approach. In this review, we focus on neurogenic causes of ED, trying to elucidate the mechanisms that lie beneath it and how we manage these patients.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research