Introduction: Although the nocturnal penile tumescence (NPT) test is considered the gold standard for the differential diagnosis of psychogenic versus organic erectile dysfunction (ED), concerns have recently been raised regarding the financial and time expenditure it demands. We evaluated the diagnostic efficacy of the audiovisual sexual stimulation (AVSS) test as an alternative to the NPT test. Patients and Methods: A total of 43 patients with ED were examined. Each patient filled in an International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaire. The evaluation of each patient consisted of AVSS and NPT tests which were performed using the RigiScan Plus. The results obtained with the two tests were compared. The patients with normal NPT patterns were presumed to have a psychogenic etiology of their ED and those with abnormal NPT patterns to have an organic etiology. Results: The overall IIEF score was 32.5 ± (SD) 9.2, and the erectile domain score was 12.2 ± 4.5. Twenty-three patients had normal responses to the AVSS test, while 20 had abnormal responses. Twenty-two of the former 23 patients and 9 of the latter 20 patients had normal NPT patterns. Therefore, the AVSS test discriminated psychogenic ED with 71% sensitivity and 92% specificity. The overall accuracy of the test in this study was 77%. Conclusions: The AVSS test is simple, practical, and inexpensive, and its diagnostic accuracy is comparable to that of the NPT test. We conclude that the AVSS test should be the examination of choice for the primary etiological diagnosis in ED.

Keywords:
Audiovisual sexual stimulation test, Differential diagnosis, Psychogenic versus organic erectile dysfunction, Erectile dysfunction, Etiology, Nocturnal penile erection, Nocturnal penile tumescence test
This content is only available via PDF.
© 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel
2004
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.