A RANDOMIZED PHASE 3 STUDY OF INTRAOPERATIVE CAVERNOUS NERVE STIMULATION WITH PENILE TUMESCENCE MONITORING TO IMPROVE NERVE SPARING DURING RADICAL PROSTATECTOMY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We determine if mapping of the cavernous nerve during radical prostatectomy using intraoperative cavernous nerve stimulation with tumescence monitoring results in improved erectile potency compared to conventional nerve sparing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized, single blinded study was performed on 61 patients at 6 centers. Patients had elected to undergo nerve sparing prostatectomy and had normal preoperative erectile function documented by the Sexual Function Inventory Questionnaire (SFIQ) and RigiScan parallel testing. Patients were randomized between conventional nerve sparing and nerve sparing assisted by the CaverMap Surgical Aid. paragraph sign In all patients neural continuity was assessed immediately after prostate removal by proximal cavernous nerve stimulation. All patients were blinded according to their allocation cohort. RESULTS: At 1 year there was substantial improvement in erectile function in the CaverMap group as measured by RigiScan. This group had a mean of 15. 9 minutes of greater than 60% nocturnal tumescence compared to 2.1 minutes in the conventional nerve sparing group (p <0.024). By SFIQ there was a nonsignificant trend to improved potency in the CaverMap group (71% versus 62%, p = 0.17). Of patients who had bilateral, unilateral and no response to stimulation after resection erectile function assessed by SFIQ recovered in 68%, 27% and 0%, respectively (p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: CaverMap assisted prostatectomy led to improved erectile function as assessed by RigiScan testing with no associated adverse events. A response to stimulation immediately after removal of the prostate accurately predicted return of erectile function.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".