Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Satisfaction and genital perception after orchiectomy for prostate cancer: does the technique matter? A randomized trial

  • Urology - Original Paper
  • Published:
International Urology and Nephrology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Bilateral extracapsular or total orchiectomy (BEO) for prostate cancer is presumed to have psychological consequences after the surgery due to perception of an empty scrotum. Bilateral subcapsular orchiectomy (BSO) was designed to preserve perception of palpable testes. We compared the patients' satisfaction and genital perception following BEO and BSO.

Materials and methods

Prostate cancer patients eligible for androgen deprivation therapy who opted for orchiectomy were enrolled in prospective randomized study. Patients with bleeding disorder or uncorrected coagulopathy, poor performance score, and psychiatric problems were excluded. Outlook to life and own health in-general, overall satisfaction to the procedure and genital perception was evaluated using modified Fugl-Meyer questionnaire (FMQ) which was administered before and after 3 months of the surgery. Patients were randomized to BEO and BSO groups at the time of surgery using block randomization. Primary outcome was to compare the genital perception of testicular loss and patients’ satisfaction to BSO and BEO. Secondary outcomes included testosterone and PSA control, operative time, and complications.

Results

Total 35 patients were enrolled in each group which was comparable. There was no difference in PSA control at 3 months. Mean operative time and blood loss were significantly lesser in BEO group. FMQ score at 3 months did not show significant difference. Majority of the patients in both groups were satisfied with procedure and the aesthetic value of scrotum after surgery. However, 84% in BSO group did not feel that testes were removed on self-examination, as compared to 28% in BEO group. Majority patients in both groups did not report physical or psychological discomfort from change in scrotal content.

Conclusions

Results showed that patients’ satisfaction and genital perception following BSO and BEO were similar. Feeling of remaining intrascrotal contents after BSO did not had added psychological advantage in terms of perception of genitalia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Huggins C, Hodges CV (1941) The effects of castration, of estrogen and of androgen injection on serum acid phosphatase in metastatic carcinoma prostate. Cancer Res 1:293–297

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Chang SL, Liao JC, Shinghal R (2009) Decreasing use of luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists in the United States is independent of reimbursement changes: a medicare and veterans health administration claims analysis. J Urol 182:255–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2009.02.141

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Melton LJ, Alothman KI, Achembach SJ, O’Fallon WM, Zincke H (2001) Decline in bilateral orchiectomy for prostate cancer in Olmsted County, Minnesota, 1956–2000. Mayo Clin Proc 76:1199–1203. https://doi.org/10.4065/76.12.1199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Riba LW (1942) Subcapsular castration for carcinoma of prostate. J Urol 48:384–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)70724-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Tacker JR, Coker JE, Hosty TA, Albers DD (1980) Hormonal effect of subcapsular orchiectomy versus total orchiectomy. Invest Urol 17:441–442

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Chapman JP (1987) Comparison of testosterone and LH values in subcapsular vs total orchiectomy patients. Urology 30:27–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(87)90565-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zhang XZ, Donovan MP, Williams BT, Mohler JL (1996) Comparison of subcapsular and total orchiectomy for treatment of metastatic prostate cancer. Urology 47:402–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80460-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fugl-Meyer AR, Lodnert G, Branholm IB, Fugl-Meyer KS (1997) On life satisfaction in male erectile dysfunction. Int J Impot Res 9:141–148. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ijir.3900269

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Vicker MA Jr, Lamontagne DP, Guru KA, Satyanarayana RK, Vickers KE, Menon M (2004) Autologous tunica vaginalis and subcapsular orchiectomy: a hormonal therapy for prostate cancer. J Androl 25:375–381. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1939-4640.2004.tb02803.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chadwick DJ, Gillatt DA, Gingell JC (1991) Medical or surgical orchiectomy: the patient’s choice. BMJ 302:572. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.302.6776.572

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Bonzani RA, Stricker HJ, Peabody JO, Menon M (1998) Cost comparison of orchiectomy and leuprolide in metastatic prostate cancer. J Urol 160:2446–2449. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)62207-9

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Rud O, Peter J, Kheyri R, Glifrich C, Ahmed AM, Boekkmann W et al (2012) Subcapsular orchiectomy in the primary therapy of patients with bone metastasis in advanced prostate cancer: an anachronistic intervention? Adv Urol 2012:190624. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/190624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bapat S, Mahajan PM, Bhave AA, Kshirsagar YB, Sovani YB, Mulay A (2011) Prospective randomised controlled trial comparing sub-epididymal orchiectomy versus conventional orchiectomy in metastatic carcinoma of prostate. Ind J Surg 73:175–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-010-0207-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Kihara K, Oshima H (1998) Cosmetic orchiectomy using pedicled fibrofatty tissue graft for prostate cancer; a new approach. Eur Urol 34:210–215. https://doi.org/10.1159/000019715

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Chiou R (1990) Cosmetic orchiectomy. Surgical technique that meets medical & psychologic needs of patients with advanced prostatic carcinoma. Urology 36:91–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(90)80322-e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Short KL, Howerton LW, Holt H, Amin M (1984) Subcapsular orchiectomy with testicular prosthesis for metastatic prostate carcinoma. Urology 24:38–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(84)90384-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Issa MM, Lendvay TS, Bouet R, Young MR, Petros JA, Marshall FF (2005) Epididymal sparing bilateral simple orchiectomy with epididymoplasty: preservation of esthetics and body image. J Urol 174:893–897. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000172567.09442.b0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Østergren PB, Kistorp C, Fode M, Henderson J, Bennedbæk FN, Faber J, Sønksen J (2017) Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonists are superior to subcapsular orchiectomy in lowering testosterone levels of men with prostate cancer: results from a randomized clinical trial. J Urol 197:1441–1447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.12.003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Agarwal M, Agrawal MS (2015) Can subepididymal orchiectomy re-emerge as the treatment of choice in patients with advanced prostatic carcinoma? Indian J Surg 77:23–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-012-0741-z5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yıkılmaz TN, Öztürk E, Hamidi N, Başar H (2018) Comparison of subcapsular and total orchiectomy in patients with prostate cancer. Bull Urooncol 17:5–8. https://doi.org/10.4274/uob.925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sakamoto M, Ikeuchi T, Kai Y (1989) Clinical studies of subcapsular orchiectomy with an intracapsular testicular prosthesis—improving the quality of life in patients with prostatic cancer. Gan No Rinsho 35:1143–1148

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Selvi I, Basar H (2020) Subcapsular orchiectomy versus total orchiectomy and LHRH analogue in the treatment of hormone-sensitive metastatic prostate cancer: a different perspective in evaluation of the psychosocial effects. Support Care Cancer 28:4313–4326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-019-05266-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Orakwe DE, Tijani KH, Jeje EA, Ogunjimi MA, Rufus WO, Alabi TO (2018) Bilateral subcapsular orchiectomy versus bilateral total orchiectomy: comparison of the quality of life post-orchiectomy. Niger Postgrad Med J 25:43–47. https://doi.org/10.4103/npmj.npmj_169_17

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Onkar Singh.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1: Modified Fugl-Meyer questionnaire

Appendix 1: Modified Fugl-Meyer questionnaire

Fugl-Meyer questionnaire: Part 1

Following questions are to be answered by the patients BEFORE AND AFTER the surgery (as instructed).

This is a two-part questionnaire. We want you to mark “X” on the number that best describes how you felt about yourself BEFORE surgery on each of the questions. Then once you are done, go over all the questions again and mark “O” on the number that best describes how you feel TODAY i.e. after the surgery. We understand that in some circumstances you might mark the same number in the response to how you feel before and after the surgery. The answers might look as below:

1 = Very dissatisfying

2 = Dissatisfying

3 = Rather dissatisfying

4 = Rather satisfying

5 = Satisfying

6 = Very satisfying

1.

My Life as a whole

1

2

3

4

5

6

2.

 My Sexual life

1

2

3

4

5

6

3.

 My partner relationship

1

2

3

4

5

6

4.

My Family life

1

2

3

4

5

6

5.

 My Contacts with friends

1

2

3

4

5

6

6.

My Leisure situation

1

2

3

4

5

6

7.

My Vocational situation

1

2

3

4

5

6

8.

My Financial situation

1

2

3

4

5

6

Fugl-Meyer questionnaire: Part 2

Following questions to be answered by the patients AFTER the surgery:

  1. 1.

    How would you grade the appearance of scrotum for its aesthetic value (appearance to yourself)? Satisfied/Neutral/Dissatisfied

  2. 2.

    After the surgery, on self examination, do you feel that your testes have been removed? Yes/Maybe/No

  3. 3.

    After the surgery, has the change in scrotal content caused any physical discomfort? Yes/Maybe/No

  4. 4.

    After the surgery, has the change in scrotal content caused any psychological discomfort? Yes/Maybe/No

  5. 5.

    After the surgery, has there been any change in your masculinity? Yes/Maybe/No

  6. 6.

    Has the surgery affected your sexual performance? Yes/Maybe/No

  7. 7.

    How satisfied are you with this procedure? Satisfied/Neutral/Dissatisfied

  8. 8.

    If you were given a choice, would you select the same procedure again? Yes/Maybe/No

  9. 9.

    Would you recommend this procedure to other patients/family members/friends with same illness? Yes/Maybe/No

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Singh, O., Mukherjee, P., Sakthivel, M.S. et al. Satisfaction and genital perception after orchiectomy for prostate cancer: does the technique matter? A randomized trial. Int Urol Nephrol 53, 1583–1589 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-021-02849-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-021-02849-z

Keywords

Navigation