Retzius-sparing robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: Racial considerations for 250 consecutive cases.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e17546 Background: To report the functional and oncologic outcomes of a cohort of 250 consecutive prostate cancer patients undergoing a Retzius-sparing approach and to assess for racial differences in continence outcomes. Methods: This was a prospective, single-center, case series of 250 consecutive prostate cancer patients who underwent a Retzius-sparing robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy by a single surgeon between May 2015 and April 2019.Our primary objective was to describe post-operative continence outcomes of patients undergoing this technique. Results: Median follow up was 24.0 months [Interquartile range (IQR) 18.0-30.0 months]. Median age and body mass index were 62.0 years (IQR 57.0-67.0) and 29.0 kg/m 2 (IQR 26.0-33.0), respectively. Median PSA was 8.22 ng/ml (IQR 5.74-13.31). 84.8% of patients were intermediate or high-risk pre-operatively. 96.0% had Gleason Score 7 or worse disease on final pathologic analysis. Positive margin incidence was 18.1% and 44.4% in patients with pT2 and pT3 disease, respectively. Immediate continence (i.e. continence achieved within one moth post-operatively) was achieved in 45.0% of patients. One-year continence rate was 92.0%. Caucasian patients experienced earlier return of continence (77% versus 65% at 3 months) compared to African American patients. IPSS scores gradually improved from 8.0 pre-operatively to 4.0 one year later. Median PSA level was 0.01 ng/ml (IQR 0.01-9.01) post-operatively. Conclusions: Retzius-sparing robotic assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy is an oncologically safe surgical technique with excellent short and long-term continence outcomes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".