Five-Year Follow-Up of Peyronie’s Graft Surgery: Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Graft surgery for Peyronie's disease (PD) is associated with significant long-term risks. AIM: To evaluate the clinical and functional outcomes of graft repairs with a minimum of 5-year follow-up. METHODS: A retrospective review of database and third party telephone survey was undertaken in all men who underwent reconstructive graft procedures for PD between May 1999 and May 2005. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient demographics, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) scores, and penile Doppler ultrasonography were performed preoperative. Follow-up assessments included surgical outcomes and overall patient satisfactions. RESULTS: A total of 86 patients with an average age of 54.6 (34 to 73) years underwent Peyronie's graft repair. The average follow-up was 98 (61 to 120) months. Twenty patients received dermal graft whereas 33 patients underwent Tutoplast graft and 33 patients had Stratasis small intestinal submucosa graft. Penile curvature greater than 60 degrees was more common in the Tutoplast and Stratasis groups. Twelve patients used phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors or intracavenous agents preoperatively. At the time of review, only 46 (53%) patients were able to be contacted and consented for telephone interview. Although 6 months of postoperative follow-up showed excellent resolution, or significantly less, penile curvature, this figures decreased to 50% in dermal, 87% in Tutoplast, and 76% in Stratasis patients. Further penile length shortening was also reported on patient self-assessment at the recent follow-up. Worsening of IIEF-5 scores were noted with the development of erectile dysfunction was more pronounced in the diabetic cohort (P<0.01). The overall satisfaction on a 5-point scale was 2.6 with more than 65% of patients dissatisfied with the outcomes of the Peyronie's graft surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The recurrence of penile curvature, penile length loss, and the new-onset of ED are not uncommon sequelae and are associated with a significant patient dissatisfaction rate when a 5-year follow-up is achieved.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".