Radical prostatectomy in obese patients: Improved surgical outcomes in recent years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Obesity has been proposed as a risk factor for reduced disease-specific survival, increased positive surgical margin (PSM) and biochemical recurrence (BCR) after radical prostatectomy (RP) in patients with prostate cancer. The aim of this study was to clarify the relationship between obesity and surgical outcomes in patients undergoing RP. METHODS: Medical records of 491 patients who underwent RP from 2004 to 2007 were retrieved from our institutional database. Patients were divided into three groups based on their body mass index (BMI): <25, 25-30 (overweight) and >30 kg/m (obese). Outcomes after RP were compared between the groups in terms of length of stay, perioperative complications, BCR, PSM and Gleason scores. RESULTS: Age, stage and preoperative prostate-specific antigen were similar between BMI categories. Operating time was prolonged in obese patients (146 vs 135 min, P = 0.01) and blood loss was greater (mean estimated blood loss 640 vs 504 mL, P = 0.02), but did not translate into higher transfusion rates. Early complication rates, PSM rates and Gleason scores were not statistically different between the groups. Significant differences in late outcomes, such as the need for adjunct procedures or BCR (hazard ratio 0.44, 95% CI 0.18-1.09), were not shown. CONCLUSION: As surgical experience with high BMI patients has developed, RP appears to be a well tolerated procedure in contemporary series, irrespective of BMI. In particular, early outcome parameters, such as PSM and BCR rates, are similar.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".