Inflatable Penile Prosthesis in the Ambulatory Surgical Setting: Outcomes From a Large Urological Group Practice
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: The definitive treatment for erectile dysfunction is the surgical implantation of a penile prosthesis, of which the most common type is the 3-piece inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) device. IPP surgery in outpatient freestanding ambulatory surgical centers (ASC) is becoming more prevalent as payers and health systems alike look to reduce healthcare costs. AIM: To evaluate IPP surgical outcomes in an ASC as compared to contemporaneously-performed hospital surgeries. METHODS: A database of all patients undergoing IPP implantation by practitioners in the largest private community urology group practice in the United States, from January 1, 2013 to August 1, 2019, was prospectively compiled and retrospectively reviewed. Cohorts of patients having IPP implantation performed in the hospital vs ASC setting were compared. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measure was to compare surgical data (procedural and surgical times, need for hospital transfer from ASC) and outcomes (risk for device infection, erosion, and need for surgical revision) between ASC and hospital-based surgery groups. RESULTS: A total of 923 patients were included for this analysis, with 674 (73%) having ASC-based surgery and 249 (27%) hospital-based, by a total of 33 surgeons. Median procedural (99.5 vs 120 minutes, P < .001) and surgical (68 vs 75 minutes, P < .001) times were significantly shorter in the ASC. While the risk for device erosion and need for surgical revision were similar between groups, there was no higher risk for prosthetic infection when surgery was performed in the ASC (1.7% vs 4.4% [hospital], P = .02), corroborated by logistic regression analysis (odds ratio 0.39, P = .03). The risk for postoperative transfer of an ASC patient to the hospital was low (0.45%). The primary reason for mandated hospital-based surgery was medical (51.4%), though requirement as a result of insurance directive (39.7%) was substantial. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: IPP implantation in the ASC is safe, has similar outcomes compared to hospital-based surgery with a low risk for need for subsequent hospital transfer. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: The strengths of this study include the large patient population in this analysis as well as the real-world nature of our practice. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the review as well as the potential for residual confounding. CONCLUSION: ASC-based IPP implantation is safe, with shorter surgical and procedural times compared to those cases performed in the hospital setting, with similar functional outcomes. These data suggest no added benefit to hospital-based surgery in terms of prosthetic infection risk. Weinberg AC, Siegelbaum MH, Lerner BD, et al. Inflatable Penile Prosthesis in the Ambulatory Surgical Setting: Outcomes From a Large Urological Group Practice. J Sex Med 2020;17:1025-1032.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».