MP61-06 IMPACT OF POSTERIOR RECONSTRUCTION URETHROVESICAL ANASTOMOSIS ON 5-YEAR INCIDENCE OF UNDERGOING CONTINENCE IMPROVING PROCEDURES AFTER ROBOT-ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP61-06 IMPACT OF POSTERIOR RECONSTRUCTION URETHROVESICAL ANASTOMOSIS ON 5-YEAR INCIDENCE OF UNDERGOING CONTINENCE IMPROVING PROCEDURES AFTER ROBOT-ASSISTED RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL Braden Millan, Jen Hoogenes, Michael Uy, Raees Cassim, and Bobby Shayegan Braden MillanBraden Millan More articles by this author , Jen HoogenesJen Hoogenes More articles by this author , Michael UyMichael Uy More articles by this author , Raees CassimRaees Cassim More articles by this author , and Bobby ShayeganBobby Shayegan More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003319.06AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Posterior reconstruction of the Denonvilliers’ musculofascial plate also known as the Rocco stitch, have shown mixed results on early return to urinary continence, yet little data exist on long-term outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate the long-term need for incontinence improving procedures post robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) comparing posterior reconstruction urethrovesical anastomosis (PR-UVA) versus conventional urethrovesical anastomosis (C-UVA). METHODS: Consecutive patients with clinically localized prostate cancer undergoing RARP were randomized to PR-UVA or C-UVA groups. Return to continence outcomes were assessed using a validated questionnaire (Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite [EPIC] Short Form-26) at baseline, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12-month follow-up. Five-year outcomes were assessed by frequency of continence-improving procedures. RESULTS: A total of 163 patients were randomized from April 2014 to July 2015 and 140 patients completed follow-up. Pre-operative clinical and functional variables were equivalent between study arms. Using a continence definition of 0-1 pads/day, the continence rates for PR-UVA versus the C-UVA were 39% versus 38% at 2 months (p=1.0), and 93% versus 86%, respectively, at 12 months (p=0.3). Frequency of urine leak, quantity of pad use, subjective urinary control, and overall bother improved significantly in all patients during the 12-month study period (p<0.001); however, no difference was demonstrated between groups. Five-year results showed no difference in the number of patients undergoing a continence-improving procedure (HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.29-2.80; p=0.09). CONCLUSIONS: PR-UVA failed to show a benefit in short-term return to urinary continence or need for an incontinence improving procedure at 5-year follow-up post RARP. Source of Funding: The Masonic Foundation of Ontario © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e854 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Braden Millan More articles by this author Jen Hoogenes More articles by this author Michael Uy More articles by this author Raees Cassim More articles by this author Bobby Shayegan More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».