Sexual function after surgical treatment for penile cancer: Which organ-sparing approach gives the best results?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We compared the postoperative sexual function of patients who underwent wide local excision (WLE) and glansectomy with urethral glanduloplasty for penile cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed clinical data of 41 patients affected by superficial, localized penile cancer (≤cT2a) between 2006 and 2013. Patients with severe erectile dysfunction and not interested in resuming an active sexual life were selected for penile partial amputation. Patients with preoperative satisfying erectile function and concerned about the preservation of their sexual potency were scheduled for WLE (Group A) or glansectomy with urethral glanduloplasty (Group B). Sexual function was assessed with the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questionnaire and the Sex Encounter Profile (SEP). At 1 year, patients were asked to complete the questionnaires again and were questioned about their genital sensibility and ejaculatory reflex persistence. Postoperative complications were reported according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. Statistical analysis was performed by two-tailed test: Student t-test and chi-square. RESULTS: Among the 41 patients enrolled, 12 underwent WLE (29.2%), 23 glansectomy with urethral glanduloplasty (56%) and 6 with penile partial amputation (14.6%). A decrease in postoperative IIEF was recorded in both groups, but was statistically significant only in Group B (p = 0.003). As for the SEP, while no significant changes were recorded postoperatively in Group A, a marked reduction was reported for Group B, with a statistically significant decrease in the possibility of achieving penetrative intercourse (p = 0.006) and in the perceived satisfaction during sexual activity (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: WLE lead to better sexual outcomes and less postoperative complications as compared to glansectomy with urethral glanduloplasty.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".