A Comparative Analysis of Physiotherapy for Stress Urinary Incontinence after Open or Robotic-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We determined whether the patient-reported benefits of physiotherapy for stress urinary incontinence (SUI) symptoms differ significantly between men who have had open prostatectomy and those who have had robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy. Method: We conducted a retrospective analysis of data collected from the Rapid Access Clinic 4 offered by the Prostate Cancer Centre in Calgary, Alberta. Baseline characteristics were measured at the pre-surgery appointment, including demographics, health factors, and potential risk factors for SUI. Patient-reported SUI symptoms were measured pre- and post-surgery using the global score of the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire–Urinary Incontinence. Results: Data from 56 men were included in the analysis, evenly split between the open and robotic sub-groups. At 3 months post-surgery, no statistically significant differences were found in the factors associated with incontinence between the two sub-groups. There was a statistically significant improvement in self-reported incontinence symptom severity from 3-month to 2-year follow-up for both sub-groups. Physiotherapy did not differentially affect either sub-group in a significant way. Conclusions: The self-reported benefits of physiotherapy for SUI symptoms did not differ significantly between the two types of prostatectomy surgery at 2 years post-surgery.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".