. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Oct 28.

Published in final edited form as: J Urol. 2011 Jun 16;186(2):10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.105. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.03.105

Table 2.

Odds ratio of objective failure in the VLPP and MUCP multivariable models

Variable	VLPP		MUCP
Variable	OR (95% CI)	p- value	OR (95% CI)	p- value
VLPP VLPP≤25th percentile vs. VLPP >25th percentile	2.23 (1.20–4.14)	0.011	–	–
MUCP MUCP≤25th percentile vs. MUCP>25th percentile	–	–	1.87 (1.02–3.41)	0.04
Delta p_abd@Q_max	1.09 (0.98–1.21)	0.10	1.10 (0.99–1.22)	0.08
Delta p_det@Q_max	0.82 (0.63–1.08)	0.15	0.79 (0.61–1.02)	0.07
USI Yes, did leak vs. No, did not leak	–	–	5.20 (1.16–23.44)	0.03
Treatment: TMUS vs. RMUS	1.27 (0.71–2.28)	0.43	1.19 (0.69–2.04)	0.54
Concomitant Surgery: No vs. Yes	1.11 (0.55–2.23)	0.78	1.48 (0.75–2.92)	0.26
Age(/10years)	1.31 (1.01–1.71)	0.04	1.37 (1.07–2.92)	0.01

The VLPP model is unadjusted but MUCP and the MUCP model is unadjusted by VLPP. Both models control for delta PabdQmax, delta PdetQmax, USI, treatment group, and the clinical variables of concomitant surgery and age, except that the VLPP model does not adjust for USI since all subjects with VLPP’s by definition have USI.