EURURO Vol. 72 No. 3

E81 476

Corrigendum
Corrigendum re: ‘‘Urinary Incontinence and Erectile Dysfunction
After Robotic Versus Open Radical Prostatectomy: A Prospective,
Controlled, Nonrandomised Trial’’ [Eur Urol 2015;68:216–25]
Eva Haglind Stefan Carlsson Johan Stranne Anna Wallerstedt Ulrica Wildera¨ng
Thordis Thorsteinsdottir Mikael Lagerkvist Jan-Erik Damber Anders Bjartell
Jonas Hugosson Peter Wiklund Gunnar Steineck
on behalf of the LAPPRO steering committe
a Department of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg and Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Go¨teborg,
Sweden; bDepartment of Molecular Medicine and Surgery, Section of Urology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; c Department of Urology, Institute of
Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Go¨teborg, Sweden; dDivision of Clinical Cancer
Epidemiology, Department of Oncology, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Go¨teborg, Sweden; e Faculty of
Nursing, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavı´k, Iceland; f UroClinic, Stockholm, Sweden; g Department of Urology, Ska˚ne University
Hospital, Lund University, Malmo¨, Sweden; h Department of Oncology and Pathology, Division of Clinical Cancer Epidemiology, Karolinska Institutet,
Stockholm, Sweden
We write to inform readers that the list of possible confounders was incomplete in our original article, including the
Supplementary material. Furthermore, in one of the tables a footnote included one confounder used in the adjusted analysis
that should not have been there, and consequently one that should have been included was left out (ie, a switch was
unfortunately made in the list).
ava ilable at
journal homepage:
Table 1a – Comparison of open surgery and robot-assisted laparoscopic surgery concerning urinary leakage as measured by use of pads as
reported by patients
<1 pad 1 pad 2-3 pads 4-5 pads 6 pads
Robot-assisted surgery, n (%) 175 (10.2) 230 (13.4) 103 (6.0) 19 (1.1) 14 (0.8)
Open surgery, n (%) 96 (13.4) 85 (11.9) 40 (5.6) 12 (1.7) 7 (1.0)
Comparison of techniques at different
numbers of pads used
>0 pad I 1 pads I2 pads I4 pads I 6 pads
AOR (95% CI) 1.00 (0.82–1.23) 1.21 (0.96–1.54) 1.05 (0.74–1.49) 0.91 (0.48–1.71) 0.99 (0.37–2.65)
AOR (95% CI) 1.01 (0.81–1.26) 1.24 (0.96–1.60) 1.17 (0.79–1.74) 1.13 (0.54–2.38) 0.98 (0.33–2.90)
CI = confidence interval; AOR = adjusted odds ratio.
a Adjusted for age at surgery, preoperative urinary leakage, body mass index, inguinal hernia, abdominal surgery, diabetes, pulmonary disease, mental disorder,
and prostate weight.
b Adjusted for age at surgery, preoperative urinary leakage, body mass index, inguinal hernia, abdominal surgery, diabetes, pulmonary disease, mental disorder,
prostate weight, and four preoperative tumour factors.
DOI of original article: .
* Corresponding author. Department of Surgery, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University
Hospital, SE 416 85 Go¨teborg, Sweden.
E-mail address: (E. Haglind).
1 The LAPPRO Steering Committee members are listed in Appendix 1.
0302-2838/