Table 3 Logistic regression analysis for predictors of immediate continence
From: Denonvilliers’ fascia acts as the fulcrum and hammock for continence after radical prostatectomy
ImC | Univariate | Multi-variate | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
OR (95%CI) | P | OR (95%CI) | P | |
Surgery type | < 0.01 | 0.6 | ||
Mmi-RRP vs LRP | 13.0 (5.7–29.7) | < 0.01 | 1.9 (0.4–8.7) | 0.4 |
RARP vs LRP | 1.2 (0.4–4.0) | 0.7 | 0.8 (0.2–3.6) | 0.7 |
LND, Yes vs No | 0.7 (0.3–2.0) | 0.6 | ||
Gleason score | 0.7 (0.5–0.9) | 0.02 | 0.9 (0.5–1.6) | 0.8 |
SV invasion, Yes vs No | 0.2 (0.1–0.7) | < 0.01 | 0.3 (0.1–1.3) | 0.1 |
PSM, Yes vs No | 0.9 (0.4–1.9) | 0.8 | ||
TURP before, Yes vs No | 1.2 (0.3–4.3) | 0.8 | ||
Diagnosis PSA | 1.0 (0.992–1.003) | 0.4 | ||
IIEF-5 Q2 pre-surgery | 1.4 (1.0–1.9) | 0.03 | 1.6 (0.9–2.7) | 0.1 |
Prostate volume | 1.0 (0.98–1.01) | 0.6 | ||
Age | 1.0 (0.91–1.02) | 0.2 | 1.0 (0.9–1.1) | 0.6 |
BMI | 0.9 (0.8–1.1) | 0.3 | ||
Surgery duration | 1.0 (0.98–0.99) | < 0.01 | 1.0 (0.981–1.002) | 0.1 |
Blood loss | 1.0 (0.996–1.001) | 0.3 | ||
NVB sparing | 0.01 | 0.9 | ||
Unilateral vs No | 4.8 (1.4–16.4) | 0.01 | 0.8 (0.1–4.3) | 0.8 |
Bilateral vs No | 2.1 (1.1–4.3) | 0.04 | 1.1 (0.3–3.8) | 0.9 |
DF sparing, Yes vs No | 32.3 (13.3–78.4) | < 0.01 | 26.4 (8.4–83. 3) | < 0.01 |