The use of a suprascrotal or ‘wink’ incision for placing a testicular prosthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe a suprascrotal technique of testicular prosthesis insertion that obviates the difficulties and complications associated with either the inguinal or scrotal approach, as although the insertion of a testicular prosthesis is common there are few reports of the various techniques of insertion, associated complication rates, and patient satisfaction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eight males (aged 14-26 years) who had had a previous orchidectomy, had a testicular prosthesis inserted using a suprascrotal incision. A 2-cm semilunar incision is made just above the scrotum, 2-3 cm lateral to the penis ('wink' incision). The prosthesis is inserted after developing the intrascrotal space with blunt dissection. All patients tolerated the procedure well and all were outpatient procedures. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 12 months, all patients were satisfied with the aesthetics of the prosthesis. Incisions were hidden by pubic hair. There were no wound infections at the incision site, and no reports of any pain or discomfort associated with the prosthesis. CONCLUSION: The 'wink' incision is an attractive alternative for inserting a testicular prosthesis; the advantages of the suprascrotal approach include: (i) the incision is hidden by pubic hair; (ii) no difficult dissection through fibrotic tissue in patients who have had previous inguinal surgery; and (iii) avoidance of direct contact between the prosthesis and suture line, minimizing the risk of infection, erosion and postoperative pain, while maintaining a pouch of adequate size.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".