Indications for Penile Prosthesis Revision: Lessons Learned to Limit Technical Causes of Reoperation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Reoperations are necessary in approximately 30% of penile prostheses over 15 years following original implantation. AIM: To determine the most common indications for initial penile prosthesis reoperation at our institution and to describe technical alterations that have improved postoperative outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent penile prosthesis reoperation surgery at a single, high-volume Canadian center between 2006 and 2018 was performed. Patient demographic information, prosthetic device factors, and surgical complications were analyzed. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcomes were the indications for and variables associated with initial penile prosthesis reoperation. RESULTS: During the study period, 99 first-time penile prosthesis reoperations were performed out of 1,161 penile prosthesis procedures (Figure 1). This included 14 (14.1%) explants, 32 (32.3%) revisions, and 53 (53.5%) explant and reimplants. Indications for reoperation included 49 (49.5%) mechanical failures, 28 (28.3%) technical causes (such as correction of malposition or device herniation), and 12 (12.1%) procedures to treat chronic postoperative pain. Median follow-up was 78.5 months, and median time to reoperation was 46 months. Mechanical failures commonly occurred in the tubing (n = 13, 26.5%) and cylinders (n = 13, 26.5%). The most frequently repositioned component was the valve pump (n = 11, 39.3%). Infection-related indications for reoperation were uncommon (n = 10, 10.1%). CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: More than a quarter of penile prosthesis reoperations may have been preventable with alterations in surgical technique, device positioning, and postoperative care. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This study evaluates a range of indications for initial penile prosthesis reoperation performed by a high-volume single surgeon over a 12-year period. Limitations include the retrospective nature of the study, loss of patients to follow-up, and lack of etiological determinants of prosthesis failure. CONCLUSIONS: Reoperation for device repositioning and herniation was required for more than a quarter of the initial penile prosthesis implants. Modifications in surgical technique and perioperative care can help reduce the incidence of these technical causes for reoperation. Chan EP, Punjani N, Campbell JD, et al. Indications for Penile Prosthesis Revision: Lessons Learned to Limit Technical Causes of Reoperation. J Sex Med 2019; 16:1444-1450.
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 | 0.010 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".