SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Haydarpaşa Numune Medical Journal / 2020 / Cilt: 60 - Sayı: 3

Combination or Alone? Which one is the Best in Premature Ejaculation Treatment?

Aykut BUĞRA ŞENTÜRK
Ali Haydar YILMAZ
Basri ÇAKIROĞLU
Muhammet YAYTOKGİL
Mustafa SUNGUR
Serdar AYKAN
Cemil AYDIN
Musa EKİCİ
Pages
266–270
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Discussion and Conclusion: Use of dapoxetine in combination with tadalafil instead of using tadalafil alone in the treatment of premature ejaculation will increase treatment success.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: To compare the effectiveness of tadalafil alone and in combination with dapoxetine in patients with premature ejaculation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Methods: In this study, 120 patients treated at the urology clinic for premature ejaculation were evaluated prospectively.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Discussion and Conclusion: Use of dapoxetine in combination with tadalafil instead of using tadalafil alone in the treatment of premature ejaculation will increase treatment success.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Introduction: To compare the effectiveness of tadalafil alone and in combination with dapoxetine in patients with premature ejaculation. Methods: In this study, 120 patients treated at the urology clinic for premature ejaculation were evaluated prospectively. IELT and IIEF forms of patients were filled before this study, and their urological examinations were performed. Patients that were being treated were divided into two groups. Patients in group 1 received only 5 mg tadalafil, whereas patients in group 2 received a combination of dapoxetine 30 mg and tadalafil 5 mg. Results: After the treatment, group 1 mean IEFF scores were 25.12±2.49, and mean IELT scores were 7.35±4.37 seconds. There was a statistically significant increase in both parameters (p<0.001). After the treatment, group 2 mean IEFF scores were 27.37±2.46, and mean IELT scores were 9.07±4.20 seconds. There was a statistically significant increase in both parameters (p<0.001). Discussion and Conclusion: Use of dapoxetine in combination with tadalafil instead of using tadalafil alone in the treatment of premature ejaculation will increase treatment success.

🔖

Cite This Article

ŞENTÜRK, A. B., YILMAZ, A. H., ÇAKIROĞLU, B., YAYTOKGİL, M., SUNGUR, M., AYKAN, S., AYDIN, C., EKİCİ, M. (2020). Combination or Alone? Which one is the Best in Premature Ejaculation Treatment?. Haydarpaşa Numune Medical Journal, Cilt: 60 - Sayı: 3, 266–270. https://ajindex.com/articles/204165

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Sandercoe GD, Brooke-Cowden GL. Developmental anomaly of the inferior vena cava. ANZ J Surg 2003;73:356–60
  2. Harrill CH. Retrocaval ureter. Report of a case with operative correction of the defect. The Journal of Urology 1940;44:450
  3. Anderson JC, Hynes W. Retrocaval ureter; a case diagnosed pre-operatively and treated successfully by a plastic operation. Br J Urol 1949;21:209–14
  4. Bauer JJ, Bishoff JT, Moore RG, Chen RN, Iverson AJ, Kavoussi LR. Laparoscopic versus open pyeloplasty: assessment of objective and subjective outcome. J Urol 1999;162:692–5
  5. Baldwin DD, Dunbar JA, Wells N, McDougall EM. Single-center comparison of laparoscopic pyeloplasty, Acucise endopyelotomy, and open pyeloplasty. J Endourol 2003;17:155–60
  6. Bateson EM, Atkinson D. Circumcaval ureter: a new classification. Clin Radiol 1969;20:173–7
  7. Rubinstein I, Cavalcanti AG, Canalini AF, Freitas MA, Accioly PM. Left retrocaval ureter associated with inferior vena caval duplication. J Urol 1999;162:1373–4
  8. Salonia A, Maccagnano C, Lesma A, Naspro R, Suardi N, Guazzoni G, et al. Diagnosis and treatment of the circumcaval ureter. European Urology Supplements 2006;5:449–62
  9. Pais VM, Strandhoy JW, Assimos DG. Pathophysiology of urinary tract obstruction. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA (editors). Campbell-Walsh Urology, Vol 2. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders-Elsevier; 2007. p. 1195–226
  10. Bass JE, Redwine MD, Kramer LA, Huynh PT, Harris JH Jr. Spectrum of congenital anomalies of the inferior vena cava: crosssectional imaging findings. Radiographics 2000;20:639–52
  11. Huntington SS, McClure CF. The development of the veins in the domestic cat. Anat Rec 1920;20:1
  12. Ielsen PB. Retrocaval ureter; report of a case. Acta radiol 1959;51:179–88
  13. Perimenis P, Gyftopoulos K, Athanasopoulos A, Pastromas V, Barbalias G. Retrocaval ureter and associated abnormalities. Int Urol Nephrol 2002;33:19–22
  14. Simforoosh N, Nouri-Mahdavi K, Tabibi A. Laparoscopic pyelopyelostomy for retrocaval ureter without excision of the retrocaval segment: first report of 6 cases. J Urol 2006;175:2166–9
  15. Chung BI, Gill IS. Laparoscopic dismembered pyeloplasty of a retrocaval ureter: case report and review of the literature. Eur Urol 2008;54:1433–6
  16. Yen JM, Lee LS, Cheng CW. Conservative management of retrocaval Ureter: A case series. Int J Surg Case Rep 2015;15:93–5
  17. Baba S, Oya M, Miyahara M, Deguchi N, Tazaki H. Laparoscopic surgical correction of circumcaval