Climacturia Following Radical Prostatectomy: Prevalence and Risk Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Following radical prostatectomy urine leakage during orgasm is a poorly defined entity. We defined the prevalence, quantity, bother and coping mechanisms associated with this complication, called climacturia. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was given to a cohort of sexually active men after radical prostatectomy. We inquired about the frequency, quantity, bother and coping mechanisms associated with climacturia. We also recorded uroflowmetry and an American Urological Association symptom score (International Prostate Symptom Score) in each patient. RESULTS: Of the 42 patients enrolled with a mean age of 58.9 years and average time since radical prostatectomy of 23.6 months climacturia was reported in 19 (45%). Of the men 68% reported that it happened rarely or only occasionally, while 21% reported that it occurred most of the time or always. In terms of urine quantity 58% of respondents reported only a few drops but 16% reported a loss of more than 1 ounce. Of the patients 52% percent reported no or minimal bother but 48% reported that climacturia caused significant bother. Only 21% of respondents thought that it was of significant bother to their partners. Of the respondents 84% emptied the bladder before intercourse and 11% used condoms. Age, Gleason score and time since surgery were not predictors of climacturia. No association between peak urine flow on uroflowmetry or International Prostate Symptom Score and climacturia was found. CONCLUSIONS: Climacturia is a common clinical entity, occurring in almost half of all patients after radical prostatectomy. It can be a significant problem with respect to urine volume loss, associated bother and condom use. Patients must be informed about this complication before undergoing radical prostatectomy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".