MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949770078 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.5981

Scrotal trauma: A case report and review of the literature

2019· review· en· W2949770078 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Harkanwal Randhawa, Udi Blankstein, Timothy O. Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrological Disorders and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScrotumMedicineTesticular torsionSurgeryPenetrating traumaGenitourinary systemBluntAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genitourinary (GU) injury is present in approximately 10% of cases of abdominal trauma.1 Of those GU injuries, up to 67% involve the external genitalia.2,3 GU trauma is more common in males, especially in the instance of genital injury. This increased incidence in males is secondary to both anatomical considerations and increased participation in activities such as contact sports, violent interaction, and war activities.2 The lower urinary tract is susceptible to traumatic injury by way of various mechanisms. These injuries, and their sequelae, can affect patients of any age or background. Though lower urinary tract trauma rarely results in life-threating pathology, appropriate management of these injuries is pivotal in decreasing long-term morbidity.4 Although the external genitalia in males are at high risk of injury in trauma because of their extracorporeal location, the scrotum and testes are relatively well-protected from severe damage for the following reasons: 1) the testes are inherently mobile within the scrotum; 2) the scrotal skin provides reasonable elasticity allowing for internal structures to slip away from the point of contact in blunt trauma; 3) the cremasteric reflex offers a protective reflex mechanism; and 4) the tunica albuginea serves as a tough fibrous physical defense with its tensile strength.4–6 Resultantly, the incidence of scrotal or testicular injury in a trauma activation is generally considered to be less than one percent. However, the associated morbidity to the patient (including psychological effects of testicular injury or loss) and health system costs associated with these injuries warrant special attention.5,7–9 In general, there are two broad domains to consider when evaluating scrotal trauma: blunt vs. penetrating injury. Historically, blunt injury has been thought to comprise the significant majority (i.e., 75–80%) of genital trauma.2,4 A recent analysis of the National Trauma Data Bank in the U.S. described a more balanced distribution of penetrating vs. blunt scrotal trauma, with both representing nearly half of all injuries.5 However, this significant difference in reported mechanism may be attributable to input biases and geopolitical determinants (e.g., increased incidence of gunshot wound [penetrating] injuries in the U.S. compared to other nations). The importance of categorizing these these types of injuries into broad classes lies in the special diagnostic and management considerations for each type of injury (Fig. 2). For example, while just 1.5% of blunt testicular injury involves the gonads bilaterally, approximately 30% of penetrating scrotal injury will involve both testes. Additionally, penetrating injury occurs with associated injuries in approximately 70% of patients, decreasing the threshold of suspicion of damage to neighboring structures, such as the penis, bladder, urethra, and femoral vessels.2,4 However, workup for associated injury should not be neglected in the setting of blunt trauma either, and nearby structures should be appropriately investigated when clinical suspicion is present (e.g., blood at the urethral meatus suggesting urethral injury).4 Other domains of scrotal trauma, including thermal and degloving/scrotal wall avulsion injuries, are described in the literature as well and will be discussed here briefly. Open in a separate window Fig. 2 Simplified diagnostic and management pathway in blunt and penetrating scrotal trauma.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicUrological Disorders and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207