Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Urol. 2015 Sep 3;195(2):321–329. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2015.08.092

Table 4.

Model based predicted scores and contrast tests comparing surgical approach and study cohort stratified by time since treatment

Predicted Scores Difference 95% CI p Value (t-statistics)
Comparison of RRP (PCOS) vs RRP (CEASAR)
Urinary function:
 6-Mo 69.73 vs 72.76 3.03 −1.19–7.24 0.16
 12-Mo 77.67 vs 76.81 −0.86 −4.83–3.10 0.67
Sexual function:
 6-Mo 42.17 vs 48.68 6.52 2.81–10.23 0.001
 12-Mo 48.98 vs 50.40 1.42 −2.47–5.31 0.47
Comparison of RRP (CEASAR ) vs RALP
Urinary function:
 6-Mo 72.76 vs 74.67 1.92 −1.76–5.59 0.31
 12-Mo 76.81 vs 78.39 1.58 −1.83–4.98 0.36
Sexual function:
 6-Mo 48.68 vs 53.14 4.46 1.30–7.62 0.006
 12-Mo 50.40 vs 56.57 6.18 2.88–9.48 <0.001
Comparison of RRP (PCOS) vs RALP
Urinary function:
 6-Mo 69.73 vs 74.67 4.94 1.75–8.13 0.002
 12-Mo 77.67 vs 78.39 0.71 −2.34–3.76 0.65
Sexual function:
 6-Mo 42.17 vs 53.14 10.98 8.16–13.80 <0.001
 12-Mo 48.98 vs 56.57 7.60 4.62–10.57 <0.001