Neuroprotective and Nerve Regenerative Approaches for Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction after Cavernous Nerve Injury
Campbell JD., Burnett AL.
Narrative Review, published in Int J Mol Sci (2017) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
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
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
- Int J Mol Sci (2017)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 28820434
- PMCID
- PMC5578182
- DOI
- 10.3390/ijms18081794
- Citations
- 35
Abstract (original English)
Erectile dysfunction (ED) is a significant cause of reduced quality of life in men and their partners. Cavernous nerve injury (CNI) during pelvic surgery results in ED in greater than 50% of patients, regardless of additional patient factors. ED related to CNI is difficult to treat and typically poorly responsive to first- and second-line therapeutic options. Recently, a significant amount of research has been devoted to exploring neuroprotective and neuroregenerative approaches to salvage erectile function in patients with CNI. In addition, therapeutic options such as neuregulins, immunophilin ligands, gene therapy, stem cell therapy and novel surgical strategies, have shown benefit in pre-clinical, and limited clinical studies. In the era of personalized medicine, these new therapeutic technologies will be the future of ED treatment and are described in this review.
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 evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.