Critical analysis of the literature investigating urogenital function preservation following robotic rectal cancer surgery

Table 5 Original studies reporting male sexual function

Ref.	Males assessed independently of females	Functional scores applied	Control group	No. of cases examining male sexual function	Follow up in months	Outcome summary
Kim et al[31]	Yes	Yes	Robot vs lap	18 rob vs 20 lap	1, 3, 6, 12	Quicker recovery of male sexual function in robotic group (6 mo vs 12 mo) No difference in IIEF change from baseline between two groups at any stage Erectile function and libido deteriorated significantly more in lap group at 3 mo
Park et al[9]	Yes	Yes	Robot vs lap	20 vs 20	3, 6, 12	Quicker recovery of male sexual function in robotic group (6 mo vs 12 mo) IIEF deterioration significantly higher in lap group at 6 mo (P = 0.03)
Park et al[32]	Yes	Yes	Robot vs lap	14 rob vs 15 lap	3, 6, 12	Better male sexual function scores at 3 and 6 mo in robotic group No difference in IIEF change from baseline between two groups at any stage
D'Annibale et al[33]	Yes	Yes	Robot vs lap	18 rob vs 23 lap	1, 12	Erectile function restored 1 yr post-operatively in robotic group (P = 0.066) and partially in lap group (P = 0.048) No statistical comparison of IIEF change from baseline b/n 2 groups at any stage
Ozeki et al[18]	Yes	Yes	Robot vs open	15 rob vs 22 open	3, 6, 12	IIEF scores unchanged at 3, 6 and 12 mo in both groups
Morelli et al[30]	Yes	Yes	Robot vs lap	Not available	1, 6, 12	Quicker recovery of erectile and orgasmic function in robotic group (6 mo vs 12 mo) No difference in IIEF change from baseline between two groups at any stage
Leung et al[5]	Yes	Yes	No control group	15	3	No significant difference between post- and pre-operative IIEF scores
Luca et al[6]	Yes	Yes	No control group	38	1, 6, 12	Male sexual function scores decreased at 1 and 6 mo, recovered at 12 mo
Stănciulea et al[37]	Yes	Yes	No control group	31	Once b/n 6 and 12	No difference of pre- and post-op IIEF scores with exception of 3 patients (9.68%) with severe erectile dysfunction
Alecu et al[36]	No	Yes	No control group	79	Not stated	3 patients (3.79%) developed important sexual dysfunction. No mention of IIEF scores in results
Patriti et al[40]	Yes	No	Robot vs lap	11 rob vs 12 lap	Mean f/u 12 mo	No difference in the incidence of sexual dysfunction between the 2 groups
Erguner et al[38]	No	No	Robot vs lap	27 rob vs 37 lap	Not stated	No difference in the incidence of sexual dysfunction between the 2 groups
Cho et al[35]	No	No	Robot vs lap	278 vs 278	1	No difference in the incidence of sexual dysfunction between the 2 groups
Park et al[39]	Yes	No	No control group	16	Not stated	1 patient (6.25%) developed ejaculatory dysfunction, no patients developed erectile dysfunction

This table describes the same study characteristics included in Tables 3 and 4 but for studies assessing male sexual function. Robot: Robotic; lap: Laparoscopic; f/u: Follow up; IIEF: International Index of Erectile Function score.