Penile amputation and successful reattachment and the role of winter shunt in postoperative viability: A case report and literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traumatic self-amputation of the penis by a psychotic patient is rare. Microvascular replantation is the favored management approach. There are no known cases of self-amputation followed by ingestion of the stump and subsequent replantation. A 51-year-old patient with paranoid schizophrenia presented 2 hours following penile amputation. He had swallowed the excised portion, which was endoscopically retrieved from the stomach in the emergency department. Successful reattachment was achieved including microvascular repair of the dorsal penile arteries without cavernosal arterial anastamoses. A Winter's shunt was performed to improve venous circulation. The patient has been followed for 3 years from the date of repair. He has adequate erection for intercourse and good urinary function, but has experienced sensory loss over the dorsal aspect and glans and urethral stricture dilation. This is the first report of replantation following ingestion of an amputated penis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".