Reading between the lines...as a male, I would think Wendy
has hit on what your main concern is brewster.
I am four weeks out ( today )from having the bladder, prostate,
and 14-nodes removed. Two days ago I experienced my first post-op
orgasim. While not exactly the same in intensity, the 'relief' and a
very pleasant sensation was achieved. Very satisfying would be the
term I would use, especially considering the short healing time.
My friend, we are alive, to reach any form or shape of orgasim
after being told we could be facing the end of our lives is indeed
welcome news. At 61...I expect another 20-years of sexual pleasure.
Rather than go into more detail here on an open forum where some might
be offended, perhaps it would be better if you asked more questions by email.
Zac is one who being younger, took additional steps to inhance his capabilities,
others, depending it seems, on health conditions, do not require additional
surgery or devices to regain a healthy sex life.
BTW, health, as well as mental attitude, not age, seem to be the key factors.
The answer to why the prostate goes is because time has shown that this leads to better long term survival. They can take the prostate and still spare nerves related to erectile function, if the surgeon knows the technique (which isn't 100%, risk will always remain that erectile function is not preserved...however, even so, men can still experience orgasms).
He says "the prostate is intimately attached to the bladder and can serve as a reservoir for cancer cells if it is not removed." If it's so "intimately attached" why is it that so many men with prostate cancer can have their prostate removed without also removing the bladder? What does "can serve as a reservoir" mean? That there might be cancer cells in the prostate...or that cancer could develop sometime down the line? Why is cancer from the bladder any more likely to move downstream to the prostate than upstream to the kidneys? Are they saying gravity is involved here?
Prostate cancer is a different beast than bladder cancer. It doesn't have the high recurrence rate that bladder cancer has, tends not to be as aggressive if caught early enough, and is affected by male hormones. Prostate cancer can metastasize, but it doesn't go to the bladder. On the other hand, the prostate is connected to the urethra, so while I don't think bladder cancer cells metastasize to the prostate, I suppose they could hide there. The kidneys and ureters are unfortunately at risk as well, but removing the kidneys to decrease one's risk is not an option since the kidneys are vital organs. You may disagree, but when it comes to preserving life and limb, the prostate is not a vital organ. That is more a quality of life issue, and should you face the problem, you're entitled to ask the risks of leaving the prostate intact and make an informed decision.
TaG3 + CIS 12/2000. TURB + Mitomycin C (No BCG)
Urethral stricture, urethroplasty 10/2009
CIS 11/2010 treated with BCG. CIS 5/2012 treated with BCG/interferon
T1G3 1/2013. Radical Cystectomy 3/5/2013, No invasive cancer. CIS in right ureter.
Incontinent. AUS implant 2/2014. AUS explant...
I can't answer your questions, but my husband had his bladder removed on 8-6-07. Before that, he had a prostate biopsy on 7-25-07 which was negative and all his PSAs have been negative. After they removed the prostate (along with the bladder) it turns out he DID have prostate cancer. Needless to say, we are glad it was removed.
(this might duplicate my earlier transmission of this msg before I was disconnected)
Greetings - What are the rough percentages of plain cystectomy vs. radical cystectomy for men? Is it true that it's almost automatic that the prostate is removed along with the bladder? Why is that? The only explanation I've found is in Dr. Schoenberg's book, Guide to living with BC. He says "the prostate is intimately attached to the bladder and can serve as a reservoir for cancer cells if it is not removed." If it's so "intimately attached" why is it that so many men with prostate cancer can have their prostate removed without also removing the bladder? What does "can serve as a reservoir" mean? That there might be cancer cells in the prostate...or that cancer could develop sometime down the line? Why is cancer from the bladder any more likely to move downstream to the prostate than upstream to the kidneys? Are they saying gravity is involved here? (I'd be surprised.)
If the prostate does not show cancer at the time of a cystectomy, why not leave it alone and vigilantly monitor it?...and let the guy keep one more function. I must be missing something. Please shed a little light on this for me. Thank you in advance.
BTW, I'm not at the point of removing anything - although I have been slow dancing with the beast for five years. I'm currently in a maintenance mode with BCG for CIS. It's not that I'm pessimistic. It's just that I want to understand the basics in case the time ever comes, because I know then I could be like a deer in the headlights. best, brewster