ArticleCancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.)2024
Short-Term Urinary Incontinence After Radical Prostatectomy Is Still Based on Patients' Age, Nerve-Sparing Approach, and Surgical-Experience, Despite the Higher-Use of Robotic Surgery in 2022 Compared to 2016 Real-World Results of a Large Rehabilitation Center in Germany.
Article in Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Development and validation of nomogram models for predicting urinary incontinence following radical prostatectomy in high-risk prostate cancer patients.American journal of cancer research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite constant improvements, incontinence is one of the most relevant and quality-of-life-reducing side effects of radical prostatectomy (RP) and, in addition to patient-specific factors such as age, the experience of the surgeon/center and the surgical technique used play an important role.
aimsTo present current real-world data on short-term incontinence after RP from one of the largest German rehabilitation centers in 2022 and to compare it to the results from the same institution in 2016. METHODS AND
resultsRetrospective, unicentric, univariate analysis of data from 1394 men after RP in 2022 on admission and discharge from the rehabilitation clinic. Incontinence defined as ≥ 1 pad/day was evaluated by quantitative measuring all day incontinence under a defined graduation and compared to the results of 2016. Totally, 1393 men were available for analysis in 2022 compared to 1390 in 2016. Median age for both cohorts was 66 years with minor differences in preoperative PSA levels. Despite different surgical approaches, no significant change in short-term incontinence rates in 2016 and 2022 were noted at discharge (76.9% vs. 77.9%, p = 0.56). A notable increase in patients with ISUP grade Group 2 and a shift towards robotic surgery were observed in 2022 (45.5%-71%). While nerve sparing led to a significant improvement in continence (p < 0.01), lymphadenectomy and T-stage were not related to any significant increase in short-term incontinence rates. Comparing age groups within the cohort, patients > 69 years exhibited the highest risk of short-term incontinence and least likelihood of regaining continence during rehabilitation (p < 0.01). Men treated at a certified prostate cancer center had significantly (p < 0.01) lower short-term incontinence rates.
conclusionOur study shows little improvement in short-term postoperative incontinence rates after RP in Germany in the last 6 years and known risk factors for postoperative incontinence like age, nerve-sparing surgery, and level of experience were reproduced in our analyses. We conclude not only to carefully select but also to counsel patients before being treated for prostate cancer and to strongly advice treatment at certified centers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.