Incontinence after radical prostatectomy: Anything new in its management?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: With the increasing number of radical prostatectomies (RP) performed, male stress urinary incontinence (SUI) has become common. The artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) is the gold standard to treat SUI post-RP, but new devices have recently been developed. We review the recent studies on the treatment of SUI post-RP; we also describe the surgical techniques, mechanisms of action and results of these new procedures. METHODS: We conducted a literature review search in the PubMed/Medline and Embase databases. Our search was restricted to recent articles. We included studies even if the urinary incontinence was due to sphincter deficiency after RP in non-neurologic patients. RESULTS: We found 8 cohort studies for the surgical procedure: 3 studies concerning slings, 1 involving balloons adjustable implant, and 4 involving new devices. The only randomized controlled trial (RCT) was a pharmacologic clinical trial comparing duloxetine to placebo. The social continence rates were analyzed for 6 studies and were up to 66%. CONCLUSION: New minimally invasive surgical procedures have emerged as the main alternative to AUS, with social continence rates up to 60% despite just 1 RCT studying the pharmacologic approach. There is an urgent need for well-designed clinical trials to clarify the role of new surgical alternatives in the management of SUI post-RP. New technologies should continue to be evaluated and compared with the AUS, which remains the gold standard.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".