Effect of neurovascular bundle sparing radical cystectomy on post‐operative continence and sexual function: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether the neurovascular bundle (NVB) sparing could improve post-operative urinary continence and potency. Furthermore, concern remains regarding the impact of nerve-sparing (NS) radical cystectomy (RC) on oncological outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate whether in men undergoing NS RC could improve post-operative urinary continence and potency. The secondary objective was to assess whether NS RC could compromise the oncological control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed and Web of Science was performed in February 2020, yielding 1446 unique records. A total of 13 comparative cohort studies were included. Risk of bias in each study was assessed separately by two authors using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). RESULTS: Data from 921 participants in 12 studies were synthesized in the present meta-analysis. Meta-analysis revealed that NS compared with non-nerve sparing (NNS) results in improved post-operative potency, daytime continence, and nocturnal continence. RRs were 9.35 (P < .00001) in potency, 1.11 (P = .045) in daytime continence, and 1.33 (P = .002) in nocturnal continence, respectively. Furthermore, no differences were found in the included studies reporting oncological outcomes. RRs were 0.88 (P = .61) in local and/or distant recurrence between two groups. A sensitivity analysis of prospective studies indicated consistent results. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis indicates that NS RC can improve post-operative potency, and daytime and nocturnal urinary continence, without compromising oncological control, compared with NNS RC in men.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".