Impact of penile degloving and proximal ventral dissection on curvature correction in children with proximal hypospadias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Penile degloving is an important step in orthoplasty. Although its role in correcting mild curvature in distal and midshaft hypospadias has been previously reported, its impact on ventral curvature (VC) correction in proximal defects warrants further investigation. Therefore, we sought to document the effect of degloving and proximal urethral dissection on VC correction in children with proximal hypospadias. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 137 patients who underwent proximal hypospadias repair between 1998 and 2006. VC, defined as mild (<30%), moderate (30%-45%), and severe (>45%), was recorded before penile degloving and after erection test. Percent improvement in VC and need for further treatment (beyond degloving and proximal dissection) based on preoperative degree of curvature were assessed. ANOVA test was used to compare improvement among the 3 groups. RESULTS: Mean age at repair was 14 months (range: 6-24). Penile degloving associated with proximal urethral dissection when necessary was responsible for the improvement in the degree of curvature in 7 of 9 (77%) patients with mild VC, 23 of 44 (52%) with moderate and 35 of 84 (40%) with severe VC. Additionally, degloving alone was sufficient for VC correction in 7 of 9 (77%) mild cases, 14 of 44 (30%) moderate and only 2 of 84 (2%) severe cases. The difference among these 3 groups was statistically significant (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Penile degloving alone can correct VC. The percentage of improvement depends on the preoperative degree of curvature, with severe VC cases showing the least improvement.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".