The journal of sexual medicine · 2024
Clinical efficacy and safety of hyaluronic acid gel injection in the glans penis for treatment of premature ejaculation: systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Culha Mehmet Gokhan, Baran Caner, Erkoc Mustafa
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In recent years, there has been growing interest in the use of hyaluronic acid (HA) for the treatment of premature ejaculation (PE). The efficacy of this treatment is quite controversial.
AIM: This study intended to evaluate the efficacy and safety of glans penis augmentation with HA gel for PE.
METHODS: This systematic review includes randomized controlled trials (RCTs), primary clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies, case series, and case reports. Searches in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Knowledge, and ClinicalTrials.gov were performed blindly by 2 reviewers.
OUTCOMES: Intravaginal ejaculation latency time (IELT), questionnaires about PE, glans circumference (millimeters), and adverse events.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in the evaluation: 4 RCTs, 8 prospective observational studies, and 1 restrospective study. The number of patients who received HA gel on the glans penis was 706. According to the results of 2 placebo-controlled RCTs, HA gel treatment significantly improved IELT at the end of the first month (mean difference [MD], 65.44 seconds). In the first month after the HA gel injection procedure, IELT increased vs before the procedure (MD, 176.18 [95% CI, 146.89-205.48]; P < .001, I2 = 83%). When the IELT values were compared at 6 months after HA gel application, IELT improved vs before the procedure (MD, 143.93 [95% CI, 124.78-163.09]; P < .001, I2 = 82). The glans circumference expanded by approximately 1.5 cm after the procedure (MD, 14.82 mm [95% CI, 12.75-16.90]; P < .001, I2 = 65%). When the side effect profile of other studies was examined, side effects were observed in 91 patients after HA gel injection applied to 598 patients (15.22%). Among these side effects, the most common were pain (n = 46, 7.69%), bulla/nodule formation (n = 25, 4.18%), and ecchymosis (n = 20, 3.34%).
CONCLUSION: While HA shows promise as a therapeutic option for PE, ongoing research is essential to elucidate its clinical utility, mechanisms of action, and comparative efficacy.
AIM: This study intended to evaluate the efficacy and safety of glans penis augmentation with HA gel for PE.
METHODS: This systematic review includes randomized controlled trials (RCTs), primary clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies, case series, and case reports. Searches in Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Knowledge, and ClinicalTrials.gov were performed blindly by 2 reviewers.
OUTCOMES: Intravaginal ejaculation latency time (IELT), questionnaires about PE, glans circumference (millimeters), and adverse events.
RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included in the evaluation: 4 RCTs, 8 prospective observational studies, and 1 restrospective study. The number of patients who received HA gel on the glans penis was 706. According to the results of 2 placebo-controlled RCTs, HA gel treatment significantly improved IELT at the end of the first month (mean difference [MD], 65.44 seconds). In the first month after the HA gel injection procedure, IELT increased vs before the procedure (MD, 176.18 [95% CI, 146.89-205.48]; P < .001, I2 = 83%). When the IELT values were compared at 6 months after HA gel application, IELT improved vs before the procedure (MD, 143.93 [95% CI, 124.78-163.09]; P < .001, I2 = 82). The glans circumference expanded by approximately 1.5 cm after the procedure (MD, 14.82 mm [95% CI, 12.75-16.90]; P < .001, I2 = 65%). When the side effect profile of other studies was examined, side effects were observed in 91 patients after HA gel injection applied to 598 patients (15.22%). Among these side effects, the most common were pain (n = 46, 7.69%), bulla/nodule formation (n = 25, 4.18%), and ecchymosis (n = 20, 3.34%).
CONCLUSION: While HA shows promise as a therapeutic option for PE, ongoing research is essential to elucidate its clinical utility, mechanisms of action, and comparative efficacy.