Erectile function, urinary continence and oncologic outcomes of neurovascular bundle sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy for high-risk prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The nerve-sparing (NS) effect of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) on patients with a high-risk prostate cancer remains unclear. The objective of this study was to compare the urinary continence, erectile function and oncology outcomes of the nerve-sparing and non-nerve-sparing (NNS) group during RARP surgeries. Methods: We systematically searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science to identify relevant studies published in English up to December 2022. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used as a quality evaluation tool to evaluate the quality of the literature parameters involved, including urinary continence, erectile function and oncologic outcomes, which were compared using the Stata 15.1 software (StataSE, USA). Results: A total of 8 cohort studies involving 2499 patients were included. A meta-analysis of results showed that the NS group was beneficial to the recovery of urinary continence (RR 0.46, 95%CI 0.22, 0.96; p=0.045<0.05) and erectile function (RR 0.32, 95%CI 0.16, 0.63; p=0.001<0.05) 12 months after surgeries, which showed a better oncological outcome (RR 1.31, 95%CI 1.01, 1.69; p=0.01<0.05). Conclusions: The current study results indicate that intraoperative NS during RARP is beneficial to long-term postoperative functional recovery and tumor prognosis of patients with high-risk prostate cancers. Due to interstudy interferences, the results should be interpreted with caution. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier: CRD42022384647.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".