Robot-Assisted Laparoscopic Prostatectomy in Patients with Preexisting Three-Piece Inflatable Penile Prosthesis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RARP) is becoming the preferred surgical treatment option for management of organ-confined prostate cancer. Although not a contraindication, previous pelvic surgery can make RARP challenging. Presence of a three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis, with a perivesical pelvic reservoir, has the potential to induce steric hindrance making RARP difficult. AIM: The main purpose of this publication is to report our experience with RARP in patients with previously inserted three-piece inflatable penile prostheses. METHODS: Two patients with previously inserted AMS 700 penile prosthesis and with organ-confined, biopsy proven adenocarcinoma of the prostate underwent RARP. We describe intraoperative findings, surgical technique, oncologic and functional outcomes. RESULTS: Both patients underwent safe and successful RARP with out any complications. Surgical margins were not affected with pelvic reservoir-sparing technique. In both patients, the penile prosthesis remained functional postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: RARP can be safely performed in patients with previously inserted three-piece inflatable penile prosthesis. Nontraumatic handling of the pelvic reservoir is mandatory to preserve prosthesis' integrity.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it