Effect of surgical approach on erectile function recovery following bilateral nerve‐sparing radical prostatectomy: an evaluation utilising data from a randomised, double‐blind, double‐dummy multicentre trial of tadalafil vs placebo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To report pre-specified and exploratory results on the effect of different surgical approaches on erectile function (EF) after nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy (nsRP) obtained from the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, double-dummy REACTT trial of tadalafil (once a day [OaD] or on-demand [pro-re-nata, PRN]) vs placebo. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients aged <68 years with normal preoperative EF who underwent nsRP for localised prostate cancer (Gleason ≤7, prostate-specific antigen [PSA] <10 ng/mL) were randomised after nsRP 1:1:1 to 9-month double-blind treatment with tadalafil 5 mg OaD, tadalafil 20 mg PRN, or placebo, followed by 6-week drug-free washout, and 3-month open-label OaD treatment (all patients). Recovery of EF was defined as an International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF)-EF domain score of ≥22 and normal orgasmic function was defined based on IIEF Question 10. Both parameters were analysed at the end of washout using logistic regression including terms for treatment, country, visit, visit-by-treatment interaction, age group, nerve-sparing score (perfect = 2, non-perfect >2), and surgical approach (open surgery, robot-assisted laparoscopy, conventional laparoscopy, other). Time to EF recovery was analysed post hoc with a Cox proportional-hazards model including terms for treatment, age-group, country, surgical approach and surgery-by-treatment interaction. RESULTS: Of 422 patients treated, 189 underwent open surgery, 115 robot-assisted laparoscopy, 88 conventional laparoscopy and 30 surgery classified as 'other'. The odds of achieving EF recovery at the end of drug-free washout were about twice as high for the robot-assisted laparoscopy group compared with the open surgery group (odds ratio 2.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.24, 4.72; P = 0.029). Patients who underwent robot-assisted laparoscopy were significantly more likely to recover during double-blind treatment compared with patients who underwent open surgery (hazard ratio 1.92; 95% CI 1.17, 3.15; P = 0.010). No favourable effect of conventional laparoscopy compared with open surgery could be seen. CONCLUSION: These results may provide further insights into the role of surgery on EF recovery after nsRP. However, the trial was not designed for these analyses and further prospective studies are needed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".