MP55-16 COMPREHENSIVE PROSPECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES AFTER URETHROPLASTY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
You have accessJournal of UrologyTrauma/Reconstruction/Diversion: Urethral Reconstruction (including Stricture, Diverticulum) II (MP55)1 Apr 2019MP55-16 COMPREHENSIVE PROSPECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES AFTER URETHROPLASTY Jordan Bekkema* and Keith Rourke Jordan Bekkema*Jordan Bekkema* More articles by this author and Keith RourkeKeith Rourke More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0000556659.46061.07AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: While urethroplasty is the most effective treatment for urethral stricture, the majority of outcomes are reported from a surgeon perspective and there is limited data describing patient reported outcomes after urethroplasty. Our objective is to comprehensively describe patient reported outcomes after urethroplasty. METHODS: 357 patients from 2011-2018 were enrolled in a prospective single-center study comprehensively assessing patient reported outcomes after urethroplasty including satisfaction, urinary function, quality of life, erectile function, ejaculatory function, penile appearance/curvature, genitourinary pain, and post-void dribbling. Patient satisfaction was determined using a 5-point Likert scale. Voiding function was assessed with the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS). Erectile function was assessment with the International Index of Erectile Function 5 (IIEF-5) and erectile dysfunction was defined as a ≥5-point change in IIEF-5. Ejaculatory function was scored using a hybrid of the ejaculatory component of the brief sexual function inventory. The remaining measures were assessed using literature derived 3 or 5 point Likert scales. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize findings while both parametric (paired t-test, Chi-square) and non-parametric (Wilcoxon) tests were used to compare pre- and post-operative findings. RESULTS: Of the 357 patients enrolled, mean age was 49.7 years with a mean stricture length of 4.4cm. Stricture location was most commonly bulbar (59.7%) followed by penile (19.9%) and posterior (13.7%). The most common stricture etiology was idiopathic (40.3%), iatrogenic (14.0%), trauma (13.2%) or lichen sclerosus (12.3%). Patients underwent a variety of urethroplasty techniques, including buccal mucosa graft onlay (42.6%), anastomotic (30.0%) or staged (11.2%) reconstruction. 92.0% of patients were stricture free on follow-up cystoscopy and 80.0% of patients reported being satisfied with the results of surgery while 7.3% of patients were unsatisfied. Voiding function was globally improved after urethroplasty including urinary quality of life (4.7 vs. 1.6; p<0.0001), IPSS (19.3 vs. 6.0; p<0.0001), post-void dribbling (2.7 vs. 2.5; p=0.04) and sitting to void (2.4 vs. 1.9; p<0.0001). Additionally, genitourinary pain scores improved postoperatively (2.2 vs. 1.6; p<0.0001). Overall, erectile function remained unchanged (17.7 vs. 17.2; p=0.46) but 12.0% of patients reported new onset erectile dysfunction. The incidence of ejaculatory function remained unchanged (p=0.13) but 7.1% of patients reported worsening of ejaculatory function postoperatively. The majority of patients reported minimal change in penile length or curvature but 6.7% and 3.1% of patients complained of bothersome loss of penile length or curvature respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Urethroplasty globally improves voiding function and genitourinary pain associated with urethral stricture. While sexual function is preserved for the majority of patients, a small proportion of patients describe new onset erectile dysfunction, penile shortening or curvature and should be counselled accordingly. Source of Funding: University of Alberta Department of Surgery Summer Studentship, Northern Alberta Urology Foundation Edmonton, Canada© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 201Issue Supplement 4April 2019Page: e800-e801 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2019 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jordan Bekkema* More articles by this author Keith Rourke More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.003 |
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".