Evaluation of Genitofemoral Nerve Donor Site Morbidity After Radical Prostatectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The sural nerve is commonly used as a donor site for cavernous nerve grafting. However, the genitofemoral nerve is accessible and easily dissected and may represent an improved donor site for this procedure. METHODS: Fourteen patients underwent radical prostatectomy followed by cavernous nerve grafting using the genitofemoral nerve. Seventeen donor sites (3 patients underwent bilateral grafts) were assessed by questionnaires (including the McGill Pain Scale) and focused neurologic examination. RESULTS: Residual numbness in the genitofemoral nerve distribution was noted in 9 of 17 donor sites (53%). No patients reported that the deficits interfered with normal daily activities. All patients denied the presence of burning, cold sensitivity, or pain. All patients scored 0 on each of the 3 pain rating components of the short form McGill Pain questionnaire (sensory, affective, or total). Furthermore, no patients documented pain on either the PPI or VAS portions of the questionnaire. On examination, patients were unable to discriminate between sharp versus dull stimuli in 3 donor sites (17.6%), while 7 donor sites (41.2%) showed decreased light-touch sensation. The Semmes-Weinstein testing demonstrated that 8 (47.1%) were found to have distinct areas with sensory deficit ranging in size from 23 to 63 cm (mean, 16.6 cm). The highest-pressure thresholds for each of the 17 donor sites ranged from 3.61 to 6.45 g/mm (mean, 4.91 g/mm). The mean pressure threshold for the control regions (n=11) was 3.35 g/mm (range, 2.38--4.71 g/mm, P=0.014). Only 50% of the sensory deficits documented by the Semmes-Weinstein test were clinically apparent to the patients. CONCLUSIONS: Due to its low donor site morbidity, the genitofemoral nerve is an excellent donor source for cavernous nerve grafting during radical prostatectomy. In the majority of the patients, the sensory deficit produced by resection of this nerve is minimal and caused no other adverse symptoms. Harvest of this nerve prevents the additional morbidity associated with a donor site located elsewhere on the body (ie, sural nerve).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".