334 Post Priapism PROPPER Data Shows Good Satisfaction and Functional Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is a reporting on outcomes of patients whom underwent penile prosthesis implantation post priapism from the PROPPER (Prospective Registry of Outcomes with Penile Prosthesis for Erectile Restoration). This is the first such prospective review of outcomes of prosthetic use post priapism in North America. The PROPPER is a large, prospective, multicenter, multinational, monitored, and internal review board approved study of the real-world outcomes for patients with penile implants. Data from the PROPPER study were examined to determine outcomes of patients whom underwent penile prosthesis implantation after an episode of priapism. We compared patient data, peri-operative outcomes and satisfaction data from 11 high volume centers through-out the United States and Canada. Data include the type and size of implant received, surgical approach and difficulty, length and girth measurements, and subjective satisfaction scores. A total of 19 of the now 1348 patients in the registry had a prior priapism event and respectively 89.5% and 63.2 % of these men had 1 and 2-year follow up data available for review. Patients undergoing penile prosthesis for erectile restoration after priapism were statistically significantly younger than the non-priapism group (51.5+/-13.8 yrs vs 64+/-9.6 yrs). All of these patients received inflatable prosthetic devices, and the vast majority (94.7%) received 3-piece devices. The one other patient received an Ambicor. Overall 83.3 % of patients whom underwent penile prosthesis after prior priapism event are using their device and were satisfied or very satisfied at 2 years after surgery. These patients report an average of 6.9 +/- 6.4 uses per month. As expected, statistically significant increases in intraoperative length P value for length of procedure is 0.055, it is marginal. and subjective degree of fibrosis were noted in the post priapism group. However, there were not significant differences in length of device (20.7+/- 2.8 cm vs 21+/- 2.5cm in the non-priapism cohort), or post-surgical length and girth of the phallus with device inflated. This lack of difference in the length and girth measurements is preserved at 1 year follow up data.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".