043 Complications and Surgical Management of Vaseline Injection Into the Penis for Girth Enhancement – A Photo Documentary: Support for the SMSNA’s Position on Penile Lengthening and Girth Enhancement.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Sexual Medicine Society of North America’s position statement on penile lengthening and girth enhancement states that there is “no peer-reviewed, objective or independently- monitored studies, or other data, which prove the safety or efficacy of penile lengthening and girth enhancement surgery.” Despite this position, men focused on maximizing penile size may ultimately resort to medically unsupervised treatments to “enhance” the appearance their penis. This report uses a photo-documentary to highlight the complications and management following self-administered Vaseline injection into the penis to enhance girth and serves as a caution for endorsing similar practices. A 49 year-old Romanian male presented to the ER complaining of penile pain, swelling and skin breakdown. He reported a history of self-administered Vaseline injection into the penile skin to enhance girth approximately 4 years earlier. On examination the majority of the penile shaft skin was compromised demonstrating diffuse induration and thickening with patches of ulceration and skin necrosis. Penile ultrasound demonstrated the foreign material to be superficial to the corporal bodies and urethra. The patient was scheduled for urgent surgical debridement and removal of the foreign material with possible penile skin grafting (plastic surgeon on stand-by).
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".