MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027414202 · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.03.167

Corporeal Sparing Dismembered Clitoroplasty: An Alternative Technique for Feminizing Genitoplasty

2007· article· en· W2027414202 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFemale Genital Mutilation/Cutting Issues
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Management for clitoral enlargement remains controversial. New understanding of clitoral function stimulated a search for more conservative surgical approaches, such as recession or partial resection. However, these techniques risk decreasing clitoral sensation or causing painful erections. Moreover, irreversibility continues to be the principal problem that fuels patient, surgeon and societal anxiety in the management of this challenging developmental issue. We describe a new technique, corporeal sparing dismembered clitoroplasty, that dismembers the corporeal bodies and preserves all clitoral structures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After obtaining full informed consent and institutional review board approval 8 consecutive patients with clitoral enlargement underwent corporeal sparing dismembered clitoroplasty. Five girls had congenital adrenal hyperplasia (Prader IV and V in 4 and 1, respectively), 1 had ovotesticular disorder of sexual differentiation and 2 had partial androgen insensitivity syndrome. One pubertal girl was tested with warm, cold and pain clitoral stimulation before and after surgery. For the clitoroplasty technique the glans and its neurovascular bundles are dissected from the corpora. The isolated corpus is then completely divided starting at the bifurcation. Each separated hemicorpus is rotated inferior and lateral, to be placed inside the labial scrotal folds. The glans is reduced by superficial excision of its epithelium and fixed to the pubic attachments. Labia minora are constructed with preputial Byars flaps. Labioplasty and vaginoplasty are then routinely performed. RESULTS: Eight patients 6 months to 13 years old underwent this procedure. Followup was 6 to 12 months. All patients recovered well from surgery without early complications. The initial cosmetic result was good in all girls. The hemicorpora were easily palpated inside their labia majora pouches, which retained the desired cosmetic appearance following feminizing genitoplasty. All glans clitoris were preserved. The teenaged patient does not report painful erections. She has maintained clitoral sensation and is satisfied with the cosmetic result. CONCLUSIONS: Conservative reconfiguration of the female genitalia without removing genital structures is feasible in girls with clitoral enlargement. The cosmetic appearance of the genitalia is acceptable, at least to the surgeon and parents, in that the enlarged clitoris is hidden. The physiological consequences of the current operation and any surgery in the future to reverse it are unknown. With these aspects in mind we believe that corporeal sparing dismembered clitoroplasty should be incorporated into the armamentarium of surgeons involved in the treatment of clitoral enlargement and presented as an option for feminizing genitoplasty.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.257
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it