Artificial urinary sphincter erosion after radical prostatectomy in patients treated with and without radiation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: There has been increasing evidence supporting the use of adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer. Significant stress incontinence after RP is not uncommon and the artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard of treatment. Our objective was to assess if increased use of radiotherapy after RP has changed the rate of erosion and infection in the face of improvement in radiation technique and equipment in men who had an AUS implanted in the last 10 years. METHODS: We retrospectively examined 118 patients from December 2001 to January 2012 who underwent a RP with or without postoperative radiotherapy and subsequently had an AUS implanted. We divided the patients into two cohorts (Group 1: December 2001-December 2006 and Group 2: January 2007-January 2012). We reviewed all patient records for age, cuff size implanted, history of postoperative radiotherapy, previous incontinence surgery, revisions, and complications (erosion/infection). RESULTS: There were 36 and 82 patients in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. The mean age was similar between groups, 67 years both groups (p = 0.980). The number of patients treated with postoperative radiotherapy was similar between groups (36% vs. 32%, p = 0.640, respectively). There was no difference in the incidence of erosion or infection between Group 1 and 2 (p = 0.848 and p = 0.178, respectively). The overall relative risk (RR) of erosion was significantly higher in those who had radiotherapy compared to those who did not (RR 4.05, 95% confidence interval 1.1-15.3). CONCLUSIONS: Over the last 10 years, there has not been an increase in the number of patients receiving an AUS after RP and radiotherapy at our centre. During this time, the incidence of erosion and infection has not increased. However, our study reaffirms that the relative risk of erosion remains higher in patients who have had radiotherapy despite improvement in radiation treatment techniques and equipment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".