Erectile Dysfunction in Men with and without Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Nigeria.
10.5534/wjmh.2017.35.2.107
- Author:
Patrick Temi ADEGUN
1
;
Peter Olufemi AREO
;
Abidemi SOLOMON
;
Samuel Ayokunle DADA
;
Philip Babatunde ADEBAYO
Author Information
1. Urology Division, Department of Surgery, Ekiti State University Teaching Hospital, Ado-Ekiti, Nigeria. areolafemoris@yahoo.co.uk
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Epidemiology;
Erectile dysfunction;
Lower urinary tract symptoms;
Nigeria;
Prevalence
- MeSH:
Cohort Studies;
Education;
Epidemiology;
Erectile Dysfunction*;
Humans;
Logistic Models;
Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms*;
Male;
Nigeria*;
Occupations;
Orgasm;
Prevalence
- From:The World Journal of Men's Health
2017;35(2):107-114
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Much attention has been focused in recent decades on the effects of erectile dysfunction (ED) secondary to lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS), potentially underestimating its effects in men without LUTS. This study aimed to compare the prevalence and predictors of ED in men with and without LUTS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The International Index of Erectile Function questionnaire was administered to 303 patients between January 2014 and June 2016. Within this sample, 147 patients with LUTS (cases) were compared to 156 men without LUTS who were matched for age, level of education, and occupation (controls). RESULTS: The mean age was 66.03±9.64 years and 65.78±8.61 years for the cases and controls, respectively. The prevalence of ED was 64.6% and 73.7% (odds ratio [OR], 1.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94∼2.51) in the case cohort and controls, respectively (p=0.086). There was no difference in the prevalence of impaired erectile function (p=0.067), impaired orgasmic function (p=0.108), impaired sexual desire (p=0.291), impaired intercourse satisfaction (p=0.869), or impaired overall satisfaction (p=0.191). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that being currently employed was a significant predictor of ED both in men with LUTS (OR, 8.08; 95% CI, 1.51∼9.27; p=0.004) and in men without LUTS (OR, 7.00; 95% CI, 1.49∼14.51; p=0.008). Being married only predicted for impaired EF in men without LUTS (OR, 6.34; 95% CI, 1.40∼15.20; p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: ED was not found to be more prevalent in men with LUTS. Being employed was a predictor of ED in both groups of men, while being married was also a predictor of ED in men without LUTS.
