Impact of radical prostatectomy on bladder function as demonstrated on urodynamics study—A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: This study aims to describe the effects of radical prostatectomy (RP) on bladder function by performing a systematic review of urodynamics study findings before and after RP. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guideline and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020206844). A systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase. Studies were included if they involved men who underwent RP and had urodynamics study performed preoperatively, postoperatively, or both. Studies that included only subgroups of patients based on symptoms were excluded. Three hundred and four articles were screened, with 20 articles included. A qualitative analysis was performed. RESULTS: The rate of baseline bladder outlet obstruction (BOO) pre-RP was 19%-67%. All six studies with comparative data pre- and postoperatively demonstrated a decrease in the rate of patients with equivocal or clear obstruction. The baseline rates of detrusor overactivity (DO) varied widely from 11% to 61.2%. Six of eight studies with 6 months or more follow-up showed an improvement in the rates of DO ranging from 3.0% to 12.5%. The rate of de novo DO ranged from 0% to 54.5%. Four studies reported an increased rate of impaired bladder contractility and two of three studies showed a worsening rate of impaired bladder compliance following RP. This review is limited by the absence of level I/II studies. CONCLUSIONS: Urodynamics study shows that BOO is improved following RP in most patients. RP resolves DO in some patients and cause de novo DO in others. The net effect is a reduced overall rate of DO in most studies. Bladder compliance and contractility may be impaired after RP.
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 | 0.012 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".