The correlation between the new RigiScan Plus software and the final diagnosis in the evaluation of erectile dysfunction

Alexandru E. Benet, Jamil Rehman, Richard G. Holcomb, Arnold Melman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: The computer generated recordings for 2 nights in 40 patients studied with the RigiScan device were reevaluated using the new RigiScan Plus software to test its value in improving the discrimination between psychogenic and organic erectile dysfunction. Materials and Methods: Each man was evaluated for erectile dysfunction with a detailed medical and sexual history, physical examination, biothesiometry, plethysmography, 2 nights of ambulatory RigiScan monitoring and a psychological evaluation that usually included a private interview with the sexual partner. At the conclusion of evaluation each patient was broadly classified as having organic or psychogenic erectile dysfunction. The RigiScan reports were initially independently analyzed without the investigator's knowledge of the final diagnosis by determining the single best erectile event, with a minimal cutoff value of 60% erection for 5 minutes as necessary to be considered normal and the sum of measurements from the 2 nights. The original reading and final diagnosis were correlated. At this point the data were processed with the new RigiScan Plus software using 2 new measurements: 1) rigidity activity units and 2) tumescence activity units at the base and tip of the penis, and the results were correlated with the final diagnosis. Results: Evaluation of the single best event again showed that tip rigidity was the best single predictor if the diagnostic criteria were modified to 70% tip rigidity for 5 minutes with an estimate of correct classification of 92.5%. Nearly the same accuracy was obtained by base single event rigidity, tip rigidity and base tumescence activity units (each 90%). The summary analysis of all erectile events during the 2 nights of evaluation that had a low correlation with the final diagnosis using the original software showed that the best overall predictor of final diagnosis was tip tumescence activity units (92.5%), followed by base rigidity and tumescence activity units (each 90%). Conclusions: The RigiScan Plus software introduced 4 new parameters that facilitate interpretation of the RigiScan data. The new software did not improve the correlation with the final diagnosis compared to the subjective single best event analysis but added new objective parameters, measured and displayed by the software, that facilitate use of the data by the physician.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1947-1951
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Urology
Volume156
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1996

Fingerprint

Erectile Dysfunction
Software
Ambulatory Monitoring
Plethysmography
Sexual Partners
Penis
Physical Examination
Reading
Research Personnel
Interviews
Psychology
Physicians
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • impotence
  • penile erection
  • penis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

The correlation between the new RigiScan Plus software and the final diagnosis in the evaluation of erectile dysfunction. / Benet, Alexandru E.; Rehman, Jamil; Holcomb, Richard G.; Melman, Arnold.

In: Journal of Urology, Vol. 156, No. 6, 12.1996, p. 1947-1951.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Benet, Alexandru E. ; Rehman, Jamil ; Holcomb, Richard G. ; Melman, Arnold. / The correlation between the new RigiScan Plus software and the final diagnosis in the evaluation of erectile dysfunction. In: Journal of Urology. 1996 ; Vol. 156, No. 6. pp. 1947-1951.
@article{52220160e7154e66851453ade9afb8c8,
title = "The correlation between the new RigiScan Plus software and the final diagnosis in the evaluation of erectile dysfunction",
abstract = "Purpose: The computer generated recordings for 2 nights in 40 patients studied with the RigiScan device were reevaluated using the new RigiScan Plus software to test its value in improving the discrimination between psychogenic and organic erectile dysfunction. Materials and Methods: Each man was evaluated for erectile dysfunction with a detailed medical and sexual history, physical examination, biothesiometry, plethysmography, 2 nights of ambulatory RigiScan monitoring and a psychological evaluation that usually included a private interview with the sexual partner. At the conclusion of evaluation each patient was broadly classified as having organic or psychogenic erectile dysfunction. The RigiScan reports were initially independently analyzed without the investigator's knowledge of the final diagnosis by determining the single best erectile event, with a minimal cutoff value of 60{\%} erection for 5 minutes as necessary to be considered normal and the sum of measurements from the 2 nights. The original reading and final diagnosis were correlated. At this point the data were processed with the new RigiScan Plus software using 2 new measurements: 1) rigidity activity units and 2) tumescence activity units at the base and tip of the penis, and the results were correlated with the final diagnosis. Results: Evaluation of the single best event again showed that tip rigidity was the best single predictor if the diagnostic criteria were modified to 70{\%} tip rigidity for 5 minutes with an estimate of correct classification of 92.5{\%}. Nearly the same accuracy was obtained by base single event rigidity, tip rigidity and base tumescence activity units (each 90{\%}). The summary analysis of all erectile events during the 2 nights of evaluation that had a low correlation with the final diagnosis using the original software showed that the best overall predictor of final diagnosis was tip tumescence activity units (92.5{\%}), followed by base rigidity and tumescence activity units (each 90{\%}). Conclusions: The RigiScan Plus software introduced 4 new parameters that facilitate interpretation of the RigiScan data. The new software did not improve the correlation with the final diagnosis compared to the subjective single best event analysis but added new objective parameters, measured and displayed by the software, that facilitate use of the data by the physician.",
keywords = "impotence, penile erection, penis",
author = "Benet, {Alexandru E.} and Jamil Rehman and Holcomb, {Richard G.} and Arnold Melman",
year = "1996",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65401-6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "156",
pages = "1947--1951",
journal = "Journal of Urology",
issn = "0022-5347",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The correlation between the new RigiScan Plus software and the final diagnosis in the evaluation of erectile dysfunction

AU - Benet, Alexandru E.

AU - Rehman, Jamil

AU - Holcomb, Richard G.

AU - Melman, Arnold

PY - 1996/12

Y1 - 1996/12

N2 - Purpose: The computer generated recordings for 2 nights in 40 patients studied with the RigiScan device were reevaluated using the new RigiScan Plus software to test its value in improving the discrimination between psychogenic and organic erectile dysfunction. Materials and Methods: Each man was evaluated for erectile dysfunction with a detailed medical and sexual history, physical examination, biothesiometry, plethysmography, 2 nights of ambulatory RigiScan monitoring and a psychological evaluation that usually included a private interview with the sexual partner. At the conclusion of evaluation each patient was broadly classified as having organic or psychogenic erectile dysfunction. The RigiScan reports were initially independently analyzed without the investigator's knowledge of the final diagnosis by determining the single best erectile event, with a minimal cutoff value of 60% erection for 5 minutes as necessary to be considered normal and the sum of measurements from the 2 nights. The original reading and final diagnosis were correlated. At this point the data were processed with the new RigiScan Plus software using 2 new measurements: 1) rigidity activity units and 2) tumescence activity units at the base and tip of the penis, and the results were correlated with the final diagnosis. Results: Evaluation of the single best event again showed that tip rigidity was the best single predictor if the diagnostic criteria were modified to 70% tip rigidity for 5 minutes with an estimate of correct classification of 92.5%. Nearly the same accuracy was obtained by base single event rigidity, tip rigidity and base tumescence activity units (each 90%). The summary analysis of all erectile events during the 2 nights of evaluation that had a low correlation with the final diagnosis using the original software showed that the best overall predictor of final diagnosis was tip tumescence activity units (92.5%), followed by base rigidity and tumescence activity units (each 90%). Conclusions: The RigiScan Plus software introduced 4 new parameters that facilitate interpretation of the RigiScan data. The new software did not improve the correlation with the final diagnosis compared to the subjective single best event analysis but added new objective parameters, measured and displayed by the software, that facilitate use of the data by the physician.

AB - Purpose: The computer generated recordings for 2 nights in 40 patients studied with the RigiScan device were reevaluated using the new RigiScan Plus software to test its value in improving the discrimination between psychogenic and organic erectile dysfunction. Materials and Methods: Each man was evaluated for erectile dysfunction with a detailed medical and sexual history, physical examination, biothesiometry, plethysmography, 2 nights of ambulatory RigiScan monitoring and a psychological evaluation that usually included a private interview with the sexual partner. At the conclusion of evaluation each patient was broadly classified as having organic or psychogenic erectile dysfunction. The RigiScan reports were initially independently analyzed without the investigator's knowledge of the final diagnosis by determining the single best erectile event, with a minimal cutoff value of 60% erection for 5 minutes as necessary to be considered normal and the sum of measurements from the 2 nights. The original reading and final diagnosis were correlated. At this point the data were processed with the new RigiScan Plus software using 2 new measurements: 1) rigidity activity units and 2) tumescence activity units at the base and tip of the penis, and the results were correlated with the final diagnosis. Results: Evaluation of the single best event again showed that tip rigidity was the best single predictor if the diagnostic criteria were modified to 70% tip rigidity for 5 minutes with an estimate of correct classification of 92.5%. Nearly the same accuracy was obtained by base single event rigidity, tip rigidity and base tumescence activity units (each 90%). The summary analysis of all erectile events during the 2 nights of evaluation that had a low correlation with the final diagnosis using the original software showed that the best overall predictor of final diagnosis was tip tumescence activity units (92.5%), followed by base rigidity and tumescence activity units (each 90%). Conclusions: The RigiScan Plus software introduced 4 new parameters that facilitate interpretation of the RigiScan data. The new software did not improve the correlation with the final diagnosis compared to the subjective single best event analysis but added new objective parameters, measured and displayed by the software, that facilitate use of the data by the physician.

KW - impotence

KW - penile erection

KW - penis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0029913533&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0029913533&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65401-6

DO - 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65401-6

M3 - Article

C2 - 8911362

AN - SCOPUS:0029913533

VL - 156

SP - 1947

EP - 1951

JO - Journal of Urology

JF - Journal of Urology

SN - 0022-5347

IS - 6

ER -