Reservoir Alternate Surgical Implantation Technique: Preliminary Outcomes of Initial PROPPER Study of Low Profile or Spherical Reservoir Implantation in Submuscular Location or Traditional Prevesical Space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Alternative reservoir site placement has become an accepted technique for patients who require an inflatable penile prosthesis. To our knowledge there has been no prospective evaluation of this technique, which is currently off label. We performed a prospective, multicenter, multinational, internal review board approved study to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of alternative reservoir site placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PROPPER initiated in June 2011, is a database containing patient outcomes of inflatable penile prosthesis implantation. Patients with AMS® penile prostheses continue to be enrolled at 13 North American sites. We examined PROPPER study data to determine surgical implantation use patterns for the AMS 700™ series. We evaluated reservoir implantation site and complications by implantation site. RESULTS: A total of 759 patients had been implanted with an AMS 700 series implant by the time of evaluation. Mean patient followup was 17.8 months (range 0 to 36). There was no reported case of revision surgery for a palpable reservoir and no report of vascular or hollow viscous injury associated with alternative reservoir site placement. Two cases of reservoir herniation in the alternative reservoir site placement group and 2 in the space of Retzius group were treated with reservoir reimplantation. Patients with 1-year assessment available were satisfied or very satisfied with the device and reported a frequency of use of more than once per month. CONCLUSIONS: Alternative reservoir placement in the submuscular location is an option in patients who undergo inflatable penile prosthesis surgery. Implant surgeons should consider alternative reservoir site placement a safe, effective alternative to reservoir placement in the space of Retzius.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".