Effects of different surgical modalities for nerve-sparing robot-assisted radical prostatectomy on postoperative erectile function: a systematic review and one-arm meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maintaining erectile function is an important quality of life issue for patients with localized prostate cancer treated with robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP). However, most existing studies are retrospective and inherently weak and cannot conclude which NS approach is most effective in restoring function in patients. We therefore performed a consistent and objective assessment of sexual function outcomes in RARP using different nerve-sparing methods to optimize postoperative outcomes. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed based on PRISMA and STROBE statement criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using StataMP software version 14. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias. This single-arm meta-analysis included 3 randomized controlled trials and 14 cohort studies with a total of 3756 patients. Our meta-analysis found that patients had the highest efficiency rate of 0.86 (0.78, 0.93) after the NS technique using the retrograde method. Overall, there are significant differences between RARP NS techniques and outcomes, and the ideal technical strategy to optimize outcomes remains controversial. However, there is consensus on the importance of careful separation, dissection of the NVB, reduction of traction and thermal injury, and preservation of the fascia around the prostate. We still need more well-designed randomized controlled trials with videos describing the details of the different surgical techniques before they can be replicated.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".