The management of residual curvature after penile prosthesis implantation in men with Peyronie’s disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: • To report our experience in the management of residual curvature after implantation of a penile prosthesis in men with Peyronie's disease (PD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: • From January 1985 to June 2009, 62 (29%) of the 209 patients with PD that have undergone the insertion of a penile prosthesis have required an additional straightening procedure to correct the residual curvature after the insertion of the cylinders of the implant. • The types of additional manoeuvres, their success in correcting the residual curvature and eventual complications have been reported. RESULTS: • Among the additional straightening procedures, modelling was more successful in achieving straightening when performed on an inflatable device (84%) than on a malleable implant (54%). • If the curvature persisted after modelling or if the curvature was ventral, straightening was achieved with tunical plications or incision with or without grafting. CONCLUSION: • Although it is common for the simple implantation of cylinders alone to straighten the penis, some patients will present a residual curvature that must be successfully corrected with additional straightening procedures.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".