Talk:Prostatectomy

TURP content should move to own article

Most of the Transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) section here should move to the Transurethral resection of the prostate article. - Rod57 (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.

Also agreed. Sorry, I didn't see this entry and posted a similar request below. If all agree, the section should thus be moved? Ronsword (talk) 23:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Needs info on common post-operative complications

Needs section on post-operative hyponatremia (TUR syndrome) bleeding, clots, pain, precautions, etc.

99.190.133.143 (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring of Article

Hi all. I wanted to restructure this article to fit the Wikipedia Manual of Style for medicine-related articles. Outline structure (very similar to manual of style outline for surgeries and procedures): Medical uses, Contra-indications, Technique and approaches (where the majority of the current article information would go), Risks/Complications, Recovery, Epidemiology, History, Costs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrPFili (talk • contribs) 21:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hello! Some additional thoughts on the page. I really like the way you've restructured the outline to comply with the Wiki Manual of Style; it would be great to have content added in all the new blocked areas! Additionally, the content that exists in the Technique and approaches section would benefit from additional citations/literature references. Also, if you have a chance, it'd be great to simplify the language in the intro section; words like "benign" and anatomical terms can be difficult to understand with the article as it is currently. The bullets at the end of the intro section also seem a bit awkward and could use a bit of cleaning up. You have a great plan, now just need to fill in some of the blanks! Keep up the good work. Future FamDoc (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment re: peer review

In reading the comments and the article I would echo much of what FutureFamDoc said. The outline looks good. Sections of the line need to be filled in and referenced. I think even further simplification of wording in the lead might be useful. This of course depends on what function you envision for the lead section! Good work by both reviewer and reviewee. Emwhitaker (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Remove section on TURP?

Under the section "Techniques and approaches" which outlines several methods to prostatectomy, a brief discussion on TURP is included. However, since TURP is not prostatectomy, should this section be modified or eliminated altogether? Perhaps, brief mention of TURP as it might apply to secondary treatment for prostate cancer (i.e. its use in reducing enlargement that interferes with urination, etc.) would be more accurate? Ronsword (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prostatectomy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921124309/http://www.prostatecancer.info/prostatectomy-basics to http://prostatecancer.info/prostatectomy-basics
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.fightprostatecancer.org/site/PageServer?id=wp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Cochrane review information

I added information about comparisons between regularity of medication for penile rehabilitation from a Cochrane review to help inform readers of the impacts of the various options.--Gsom12812 (talk) 16:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Missing information about gay/bi male experiences

Like much of the literature, this article (unsurprisingly) provides a heteronormative view of sexual complications.

Some sources that might be useful in addressing this gap:

• Stephen E Goldstone (2005). "The Ups and Downs of Gay Sex After Prostate Cancer Treatment". Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy. 9 (1–2): 43–55. doi:10.1300/J236v09n01_04.
• Jerry Harris (2005). "Living with Prostate Cancer: One Gay Man's Experience". Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy. 9 (1–2): 109–117. doi:10.1300/J236v09n01_09.
• Thomas O. Blank (2005-04-20). "Gay Men and Prostate Cancer: Invisible Diversity". Journal of Clinical Oncology. 23 (12): 2593–2596. doi:10.1200/JCO.2005.00.968.
• Stacey Hart; David Coon; Marc Kowalkowski; David Latini (2011-04-01). "163 Gay Men with Prostate Cancer Report Significantly Worse HRQOL than Heterosexual Men". Journal of Urology. 185 (4S): e68–e69. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2011.02.231.
• Donald Allensworth-Davies; James A. Talcott; et al. (2016-01-27). "The Health Effects of Masculine Self-Esteem Following Treatment for Localized Prostate Cancer Among Gay Men". LGBT Health. 3 (1). doi:10.1089/lgbt.2015.0090.
• Jane M. Ussher; Janette Perz; et al. (2016-03-01). "Health-Related Quality of Life, Psychological Distress, and Sexual Changes Following Prostate Cancer: A Comparison of Gay and Bisexual Men with Heterosexual Men". The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 13 (3): 425–434. doi:10.1016/j.jsxm.2015.12.026.
• BR Simon Rosser; Benjamin Capistrant; et al. (2016-08-29). "The Effects of Radical Prostatectomy on Gay and Bisexual Men's Mental Health, Sexual Identity and Relationships: Qualitative Results from the Restore Study". Sex Relation Ther. 31 (4): 432–445. doi:10.1080/14681994.2016.1217985.
• Jane M. Ussher; Janette Perz, eds. (June 2018). Gay & Bisexual Men Living With Prostate Cancer. Harringtoon Park Press & Columbia University Press. ISBN 9781939594266.
• Obrey Alexis; Aaron James Worsley (2018-08-16). "The Experiences of Gay and Bisexual Men Post-Prostate Cancer Treatment: A Meta-Synthesis of Qualitative Studies". American Journal of Men's Health. 12 (6): 2076–2088. doi:10.1177/1557988318793785. PMC 6199434. PMID 30112965.
• B. R. Simon Rosser; Nidhi Kohli; et al. (2020). "The Sexual Functioning of Gay and Bisexual Men Following Prostate Cancer Treatment: Results from the Restore Study". Archives of Sexual Behavior. 49: 1589–1600. doi:10.1007/s10508-018-1360-y.
• Meeghan K McInnis; Caroline F Pukall (July 2020). "Sex After Prostate Cancer in Gay and Bisexual Men: A Review of the Literature". Sexual Medicine Reviews. 89 (3): 466–472. doi:10.1016/j.sxmr.2020.01.004.
• Daniel R. Dickstein; Alex J. Bates; et al. (2025). "Treatment choice and sexual health outcomes in gay and bisexual men with prostate cancer". Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases. doi:10.1038/s41391-025-01007-1.

Also (not MEDRS, but based on them):

• "Advice on safety of gay sex after prostate cancer". BBC News Online. 2019-06-10. Some of that is also covered in Macmillan Cancer Support's page Sex life and prostate cancer
• Anne Katz (2022-07-05). "Between the Sheets - July 2022". Zero Cancer.
• "How Does Prostate Cancer Treatment Affect Gay and Bisexual Men?". Sexual Medicine Society of North America.

OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 17:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, though I'd like to add that some of this would also affect other people with prostates who bottom anally (e.g. trans women, enbies and some straight men) so the wording should be neutral to include those too. ~2026-79467-0 (talk) 07:24, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely and I'm disappointed in myself for not having framed it thus myself. Thank you for the correction — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 21:08, 5 February 2026 (UTC)