Using the Dorsal, Cavernosal, and External Pudendal Arteries for Penile Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Penile transplantation may provide improved outcomes compared with autogenous phalloplastic reconstruction. The optimal approach to vascularizing penile allografts is unknown. In penile replantation, typically only the dorsal arteries are repaired, but using the cavernosal and external pudendal arteries may improve erectile function and shaft skin perfusion, respectively. The authors sought to demonstrate the technical feasibility of using the dorsal, cavernosal, and external pudendal vessels for penile transplantation and to assess differences in their perfusion territories. METHODS: Cadaveric penile transplantation was performed. Different colored dyes were injected at physiologic pressure into the dorsal, cavernosal, and external pudendal arteries, and tissue perfusion territories were assessed visually. RESULTS: Cavernosal artery exposure and repair required minimal dissection of the corpora cavernosa; extra length taken from the donor compensated for resultant shortening of the proximal shaft stump. The external pudendal system was easily accessed in the groin. Dye injected into the cavernosal artery strongly perfused the corpora cavernosa, with minimal communication to skin. The dorsal artery principally perfused the glans and corpus spongiosum. The external pudendal artery perfused the shaft and surrounding skin. CONCLUSIONS: Anastomosing the cavernosal arteries may augment corporal inflow, which is necessary for erection. Although the dorsal arteries are critical for distal penile skin perfusion, the external pudendal artery should be used in proximal transplantation to ensure adequate shaft skin perfusion. Each of these arteries has a distinct and seemingly important perfusion territory that should be considered in the setting of penile transplantation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".