Single penile incision for combined hypospadias and inguinal surgery: A comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We sought to compare the surgical outcomes of hypospadias repair with correction of inguinal pathology using a single penile incision vs. conventional approach using two incisions. METHODS: This is a retrospective study that reviewed all patients who underwent concurrent surgical repair for both hypospadias and inguinal pathologies between January 2003 and November 2015. Patients were classified into Group A, conventional (inguinal or scrotal and penile incision) approach; or Group B, single penile incision approach. Baseline characteristics, including age, degree of hypospadias, type and laterality of inguinal pathology, operative time, and surgical outcomes, were collected. Between groups, variable comparisons were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U-Test and Fisher-exact test. Statistical significant set at <0.05. RESULTS: Seventy-six patients (Group A: 40; Group B: 36) were eligible for study. Baseline characteristics of both groups were comparable, with no significant statistical difference. Overall mean operative time for Group A was 139.3 ± 56.2 minutes, while Group B was 107.8 ± 46.7 minutes (Z=2.6; U=470.5; p=0.009). Two patients in Group A and two patients in Group B had testicular ascension, all of which also had hypospadias-related complications (p=1.0). Hypospadias-related complications in Group A included seven urethrocutaneous fistulae and two repair dehiscence. Eight urethrocutaneous fistulae, one urethral stricture, and two repair dehiscence occurred in Group B (p=0.448). Surgical outcome appearance in both groups were comparable, with no statistically significant difference (p=0.466). CONCLUSIONS: Single penile incision for both hypospadias repair and correction of inguinal pathology is a feasible technique and comparable to the conventional approach, with similar surgical outcomes and shorter overall operative time.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".