Impact of obesity on functional and oncological outcomes in radical perineal prostatectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We evaluated the impact of obesity on perioperative morbidity, functional, and oncological outcomes after radical perineal prostatectomy (RPP). METHODS: A total of 298 consecutive patients underwent RPP at our institution. Patients were categorized into 3 groups based on their body mass index (BMI): Normal weight <25 kg/m(2) (Group 1), overweight 25 to <30 kg/m(2) (Group 2), and obese ≥30 kg/m(2) (Group 3). We compared the groups with respect to perioperative data, postoperative oncologic, and functional outcomes. Evaluation of urinary continence and erectile function was performed using a patient-reported questionnaire and the International Index of Erectile Function-5 questionnaire, respectively, administered preoperatively and at 3, 6, and 12 months. Limitations included short follow-up time, retrospective design and lack of a morbidly obese group. RESULTS: No significant differences were found among the 3 groups with regard to operative time, estimated blood loss, length of hospital stay, catheter removal time, positive surgical margin, and complication rates. At 12 months, 94.7%, 95% and 95% of normal, overweight and obese patients, respectively, were continent (free of pad use) (p = 0.81). At 12 months, 30.6%, 29.8% and 30.4% of patients had spontaneous erections and were able to penetrate and complete intercourse in Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3, respectively (p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients, no clinically relevant risks were associated with increasing BMI.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".