The clinical assessment of XXXX : a comparison of nocturnal penile tumescence monitoring and intracavernosal injections.

@entity1 @entity323 @entity455 @entity6 @entity5015 @entity3302 @entity546
One hundred and fifty-nine @entity1 with @entity323 were assessed with Rigiscan monitoring of nocturnal penile tumescence (NPT) and response to intracavernosal injections (ICI) of @entity3302 or @entity5015 . A satisfactory NPT, suggestive of psychogenic causation, was recorded in 58%, whereas 15% had clearly impaired NPT. There was a significant association between presence of @entity455 , @entity6 and @entity546 . For ICI, only 32% showed a satisfactory response, with 48% clearly impaired. Of the 92 @entity1 with satisfactory NPT, 40% HAD clearly impaired and 41% satisfactory ICI response. Of the 51 @entity1 with satisfactory ICI response, 8% had clearly impaired and 74.5% satisfactory NPT. There was no association between ICI response and history of @entity455 . We conclude that monitoring of NPT by Rigiscan, and without sleep monitoring, is a valuable diagnostic procedure. In contrast, because of the high proportion of false negative results. ICI monitoring is of very limited diagnostic value. The explanation for false negative ICI responses, however, could prove to be of considerable theoretical and clinical importance.
