MP76-01 INFLATABLE PENILE PROSTHESIS IN THE OUTPATIENT SETTING: AN EXAMINATION OF PATIENT OUTCOMES
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologySexual Function/Dysfunction: Surgical Therapy II (MP76)1 May 2024MP76-01 INFLATABLE PENILE PROSTHESIS IN THE OUTPATIENT SETTING: AN EXAMINATION OF PATIENT OUTCOMES Maximilian Fidel, Jainik Shah, Dhiraj S. Bal, and Premal Patel Maximilian FidelMaximilian Fidel , Jainik ShahJainik Shah , Dhiraj S. BalDhiraj S. Bal , and Premal PatelPremal Patel View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/01.JU.0001009484.98400.42.01AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation is commonly performed in a hospital or ambulatory setting which accommodates overnight stay. Recent literature has demonstrated that IPP surgery is increasingly being performed as same-day procedures in outpatient settings, not requiring an overnight stay. We sought to investigate the rate of complications amongst patients following day surgery insertion of an IPP. METHODS: A prospective study is being performed since February 2023 of all patients undergoing day surgery insertion of an IPP at Men's Health Clinic Manitoba (MHC), an outpatient ambulatory surgical centre. The following was collected within 6 weeks of their procedure, 1. infection, 2. hospital admission, 3. emergency/urgent care visit, and 4. additional prescription for analgesia. Only patients that are classified as ASA 1 or 2 and suitable for day surgery are deemed eligible for surgery at MHC. Patients were enrolled and consented on the day of the procedure. Patients were prescribed Bactrim BS BID 2 days prior to surgery along with a Dexedin/Hibiclens wash. Vancomycin and Gentamycin were given pre-operatively. Intraoperative Irricept wash was used during the case for irrigation and implant prep. All procedures involved a 3-piece prosthetic device and were performed under spinal anesthesia with an infrapubic approach, with patients discharged with a catheter and a drain. Post-operatively, Gabapentin, Celebrex and Acetaminophen were given for analgesia. RESULTS: Currently, 28 patients are enrolled in this study with a mean patient age of 61.1±9.9 years. All procedures were performed successfully with no intra-operative complications. The mean procedure length defined as time from of incision to time of dressing was 65.9±20.5 minutes. The mean post-operative duration of stay defined as patient entry into post-operative recovery room to time they leave the clinic was 130.1±66.3 minutes. Patients were cleared to use the device after 6 weeks. Thus far, no patients have required an emergency room visit. One patient had acquired a post-operative infection, requiring hospital admission, removal of the device, follow-up. 7% of the patients have required additional post-operative analgesia (n=2). CONCLUSIONS: Our preliminary results demonstrate the safety and feasibility of performing an IPP in the outpatient setting. By safely performing these procedures in an outpatient setting, this can increase accessibility and reduce wait times while utilizing overnight facilities more effectively. Source of Funding: N/A © 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 211Issue 5SMay 2024Page: e1242 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2024 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.Metrics Author Information Maximilian Fidel More articles by this author Jainik Shah More articles by this author Dhiraj S. Bal More articles by this author Premal Patel More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».