Tubing Erosion of an Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Long after Implantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Erosion through skin of connecting tubing of an inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) has not been previously reported. AIM: The aim of this study was to present a case of tubing erosion, review the pertinent literature, and discuss the possible causes and management options, including preservation of the device and its components. METHODS: A 42-year-old male failing to respond to medical treatment for erectile dysfunction underwent insertion of an AMS 700 IPP in 1986. Six years later, a revision was necessary because of a leak in the right cylinder and 4 years after, the pump was replaced. Fourteen years after the original implant, he presented with a portion of the tube connecting the pump to the right cylinder eroding through the skin. There was no infection. The skin area involved was resected and the original pump and tubing were buried in a new scrotal pocket after thorough irrigation. RESULTS: The IPP remained in place, allowing vaginal penetration and without infection for another 11 years. Three years later, it was de-functionalized, converted into a fixed volume device. It eventually was replaced 25 years after originally implanted with a semirigid prosthesis because it did not provide sufficient rigidity and because of concerns about the presence of "screws" detected during pelvic imaging. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical failures in the early IPP models, as illustrated in this case, were expected. However, the long survival of the device is remarkable. Erosion of the connecting tubing through the skin is unique and, under exceptional circumstances, may be managed conservatively without replacing components of the IPP. Clinicians unfamiliar with procedures involving inflatable devices need to be aware of "foreign bodies" visible in radiological examinations in men who have had revisions of an IPP. Morales A. Tubing erosion of an inflatable penile prosthesis long after implantation. Sex Med 2014;2:103-106.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".