ArticleThe world journal of men's health2025
Risk of Incontinence after Radical Prostatectomy According to Procedural Types: Retrospective Cohort Study Using National Health Insurance Data.
Article in The world journal of men's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAlthough surgical procedures including robotic surgery in radical prostatectomy have evolved, urinary incontinence after surgery are still not resolved. This study was to evaluate the risk of clinically significant incontinence after radical prostatectomy according to various procedural types. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe retrospective cohort study included prostate cancer (n=14,484) in South Korea between 2002 and 2017 as shown in the National Health Insurance Data. Clinically significant incontinence was defined as postprostatectomy incontinence (PPI) requiring anti-incontinence surgery or received specific medication within months after surgery. The prevalence and relative risks of PPI were evaluated according to different procedural types after propensity score matching (PSM). The risks of PPI were compared among those difference procedural types including robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RALP), open radical prostatectomy (ORP) and laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (LRP) using the hazard ratio (HR).
resultsAmong 25,903 cohort participants including RALP (n=18,937), ORP (n=4,979), and LRP (n=1,987), overall prevalence of PPI was 2.06% (n=536). According to procedural types, prevalence of PPI in LRP, RARP, and ORP were 3.67%, 1.81%, and 2.43%, respectively. Risk of PPI after PSM and after adjustment of age, Charlson comorbidity index, and hospital volume was 0.456 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.30-0.69) between LRP and RARP, 0.67 (95% CI 0.46-0.98) between LRP and ORP, and 1.404 (1.06-1.86) between RARP and ORP. Adjusted HR after PSM was 0.495 (95% CI 0.33-0.74) between LRP and RARP, 0.674 (95% CI 0.46-0.98) between LRP and ORP, 1.242 (95% CI 0.94-1.64) between RARP and ORP.
conclusionsThe prevalence of PPI which needed anti-incontinence surgery was not low among who received radical prostatectomy. Those patients who underwent LRP had higher risk for PPI than those who underwent ORP. However, further research is required to fully determine whether RARP can help to prevent PPI.
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.