#1411

A randomised controlled trial investigating the feasibility of electroacupuncture in the treatment of erectile dysfunction after robotic assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy.

E. Wong¹, H. Woo², R. Thanigasalam³, J. Cotte⁴, J. Lacey¹, S. Walsh⁵, S. Grant¹

¹Western Sydney University, National Institute of Complementary Medicine, Sydney, Australia
²Western Sydney University, School of Medical Science, Sydney, Australia
³University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
⁴RPA Institute of Academic Surgery, Sydney, Australia
⁵Western Sydney University, School of Health Sciences, Sydney, Australia

Introduction:

Robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy (RALP) is a standard treatment for prostate cancer, but side effects like erectile dysfunction (ED) remain, with limited treatment options. This world-first randomised controlled trial evaluates the feasibility of electroacupuncture (EA) to support erectile function recovery after RALP.

Material and methods:

Five surgeons were invited to participate in the study (ACTRN12621000886886). Participants were randomised into two groups: EA (n = 24) and standard care (SC) (n = 21). The EA group received 10 sessions of EA over 8 weeks. Validated questionnaires, the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and Erection Hardness Score (EHS), were administered at baseline, week 4 (W4), and week 8 (W8). The individual administering the EA was blinded to the questionnaire responses for the duration of the study. The primary outcome was feasibility, which included study completion. Secondary outcomes included comparisons of EPIC and EHS scores at W4 and W8 between the EA and SC groups.

Results:

45 participants were enrolled and completed the study. Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA) of the EPIC sexual domain, adjusted for baseline, showed no significant difference between EA and standard care at W4 (p = 0.24) and W8 (p = 0.21). However, paired t-tests revealed significant within-group improvement in the EA group at W4 (p = 0.01) and W8 (p = 0.002), unlike the SC group (W4: p = 0.84; W8: p = 0.09). The EHS also improved in the EA group from baseline to W8 (p = 0.05) compared to SC (p = 0.06).