263 Identifying surgical factors predicting postoperative potency in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy Results A total of 47 of the 227 patients were eligible for inclusion. A total of five patients were excluded based on the exclusion criteria (these patients were impotent prior to surgery). In the potent subgroup, nine patients remained, while 33 patients remained in the impotent subgroup. Matching and selection Based on the matching criteria for the potent group, nine potent patients were manually matched with the 33 impotent patients. Based on the power calculation, six pairs were selected based on the date of the surgery, BMI, age, and preoperative intention of saving the NVBs during surgery on both sides (Appendix A.1). A total of 12 individual patients were selected for analysis. Baseline characteristics Based on the selection of patients, the IIEF-EF score at 6 and 12 months after surgery showed a significant difference (Table 1). No additional significant differences between the impotent and potent subgroups were found. Table 1: Baseline characteristics of the selected patients Characteristics Postoperative impotent patients (n=6) Median (min - max) Postoperative potent patients (n=6) Median (min - max) P-value Z-Value Age (years) 58 (51 - 61) 53.5 (42 – 66) 0.345 -0.944 Body Mass Index (kg/ m2) 27.29 (21.63- 28.01) 25.97 (23.27 – 28.98) 0.753 -0.314 Prostate size (ml) 33 (29 - 50) 36.59 (25 - 49) 0.854 -0.184 Gleason score 6 (6 - 7) 6 (6 - 7) 0.317 -1.000 Nerve sparing side Both 6 6 - - Preoperative IIEF-EF 30 (24 – 30) 30 (29 -30) 0.180 -1.342 6 months IIEF-EF 6.5 (5-16) 29.5 (26 - 30) 0.028 -2.201 12 months IIEF-EF 7.0 (4 - 16) 29.0 (20 - 30) 0.028 -2.201 Prediction of potency 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 erectile function (Appendix B). The results in Table 2 show the results of the analysis by the experts. These results
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw