{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020556227327690448, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010882708585247884, 'mean_word_length': 5.46875, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Bladder neck preservation versus bladder neck excision during radical retropubic prostatectomy: Clinical results

We evaluated recovery of urinary continence and incidence of vesical neck contractures following radical retropubic prostatectomy in a series of 120 patients with clinical stage A-B-C prostate cancer. 58 patients (group A) underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy with bladder neck preservation and 62 patients (group B) with bladder neck excision and reconstruction. In group A there were no anastomotic strictures and in group B, 6.4%. In the first group we noticed an earlier return of continence, but there were no statistically significant differences in urinary continence between the two groups. Bladder neck preservation does not compromise cancer control as assessed by local or PSA-only failure rates.