Outcome of surgical management of non-palpable testes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We reviewed the success rates of orchidopexies performed for non-palpable testes at our institution and correlated preoperative and intraoperative findings to eventual outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed ninty five medical records of patients who underwent laparoscopic exploration for the assessment of a non-palpable testes between 1996 and 2009. Intra-operative data for one hundrad eight non-palpable testes were collected. Operative success was defined as a testis comparable in size or slightly smaller than the contra-lateral testis with normal consistency on the last follow-up. RESULTS: There were seventy (65%) viable testes at exploration, thirty one nubbins (29%) removed and 7 (6%) absent. In the seventy six unilateral cases, contra-lateral hypertrophy was found in twinty five (33%) testes. Of which, twinty one (84%) were associated with absent testes or finding of a nubbin rather than a viable testis. In contrast, absent testes or finding of a nubbin was noted in 12 of 51 (23.5%) patients without contra-lateral hypertrophy. The difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Mean follow-up was seventeen months. Of the fifty testes in which the testicular artery was preserved, 7 were lost to follow-up and 3 of the remaining fourty three (7%) were atrophic. The twinty testes that underwent Fowler-Stephens orchidopexy (FSO) had a similar rate of atrophy, with only 1 (5%) atrophic testis identified following staged FSO (P > 0.83). INTERPRETATION: Testicular atrophy rate was similar in both artery sparing and Fowler-Stephens orchidopexies. Contra-lateral hypertrophy was significantly associated with absent testes or finding of a nubbin rather than a viable testis.
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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".