A modification of the TIP procedure for distal hypospadias: The burrowing technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The tubularized incised plate urethroplasty (TIP) hypospadias repair is a commonly performed procedure for hypospadias. Multiple series document excellent cosmetic outcome in conjunction with low complication rates. We describe a modification that we have named the "burrowing technique." We believe that this technique facilitates dissection of the glans, which improves mobility, decreases tension with closure, and potentially improves outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of 193 coronal or mid-shaft hypospadias repairs by a single surgeon. The first 98 were performed using the TIP procedure, then the burrowing technique was developed and a subsequent 95 were analyzed for outcomes using this modification. Urethral plate characteristics and glandular size did not influence the choice of surgical technique. Cases were selected to allow for a "learning curve," and were consecutively accrued. None of the boys had undergone prior hypospadias surgery. Proximal 2 stage repairs and distal (glanular) repairs were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 193 boys underwent repair, 98 with the traditional TIP procedure and 95 using the burrowing modification. In total, 37 (19.2%) patients required re-operation for either fistulas or dehiscence; 23 (23.5%) in the non-burrowing group and 14 (14.7%) in the burrowing group, odds ratio 0.54 (p = 0.10). CONCLUSIONS: The TIP procedure has revolutionized the management of distal hypospadias. The burrowing modification increases glandular mobility simplifying the procedure and demonstrates a non-statistically significant trend in reducing reoperation rates.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".