Management of the incontinent patient with a sphincteric stricture following radical prostatectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The 5-year and 15-year life expectancy following the treatment of localized prostate cancer is excellent. Patients may develop rare but devastating complications following the surgery for prostate cancer. The purpose of this review is to summarize the available literature to date surrounding the management of the incontinent patient with a concomitant bladder neck contracture (BNC), or sphincteric stricture, following radical prostatectomy. RECENT FINDINGS: The literature consists of several case series, but no clinical trials exist to provide an evidence-based approach to the incontinent patient with concomitant BNC. Fortunately, this is a relatively rare clinical scenario and most cases are successfully managed with urethral dilatation or endoscopic techniques. Multiple endoscopic techniques are available. In addition, some authors include injectable agents in their armamentarium for the treatment of BNC. Open reconstructive techniques or permanent urinary diversion may be necessary in rare cases. Both male slings and artificial urinary sphincter may be considered for the management of concomitant urinary incontinence. Some authors suggest it is safe to proceed with simultaneous artificial urinary sphincter implantation at the time of endoscopic management of the BNC. SUMMARY: Management of the incontinent patient with concomitant BNC represents a challenging situation for the urologist. Several techniques are available to stabilize the BNC before safely proceeding with surgery for urinary incontinence. For the rare, complex case that has failed endoscopic management, referral to a surgeon experienced in reconstructive techniques is warranted.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".