239 Identifying surgical factors predicting postoperative urinary continence in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy Prediction of continence by the surgeon who performed the surgery and the independent expert surgeon The predictions of both Expert 1 and Expert 2 were related to the actual patient outcomes for continence. This analysis has been performed for the 12 patients selected. Figure 4a shows a picture of the urethral stump of a continent patient, figure 4b a b Figure 4 (a) picture of the urethral stump of a continent patient (patient # 35) which both experts judged as continent. (b) shows the urethral stump of an incontinent patient which expert 1 judged as incontinent and expert 2 judged as continent (patient # 82). Table 2: Results of the video evaluation by two experts in the field of RARP, presenting the prediction of continence based on apical dissection and urethero-vesical anastomosis. P-value calculated using Fisher’s Exact Test. Patients included,, n=12 (%) P-value Expert 1 correct assessment 8 (66.7) 0.048 Expert 1: undetermined 3 (25.0) Expert 2: correct assessment 4 (33.3) 1.000 Expert 2: undetermined 3 (25.0) shows the urethral stump of an incontinent patient. The results in table 2 show the results of the analysis of continence group. These results show Expert 1 was able to correctly predict the postoperative continence in 88.9% (8 out of 12 patients (p-value = .048)) of the patients. Expert 1 was undetermined in case of three patients. Expert 2 was able to correctly predict the postoperative continence in 33.3 % (4 out of 12 patients) of the patients. Expert 2 was undetermined about three patients. For the continency group, Cohens Kappa level of inter-observer agreement on predicted
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw