Augmentation Phalloplasty for Acquired Penile Shortening: A Systematic Review of Techniques, Outcomes, Patient Satisfaction, and Limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although an infrequent cause of small penile size in adult men, acquired penile shortening represents a particular reconstructive challenge due to preexisting penile anatomic deformities. AIM: With numerous techniques being performed, the purpose of our study is to assess available literature on length enhancement procedures used for acquired penile shortening deformities. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses. Medline/PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Databases were used to identify papers on augmentation Phalloplasty in non-transgender males with acquired penile shortening from 1990 to 2018. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Outcomes, complications, and patient-reported satisfaction were analyzed. RESULTS: 12 articles, involving 931 patients and 8 primary procedures, met our inclusion criteria. The majority of articles had level of evidence of 4 (83%) and Newcastle Ottawa Scale score of 6 (92%, moderate risk of bias). All studies reported mean penile length gain; however, inconsistent methodology was used when measuring penile dimensions. Mean length gain ranged from 0.6 to 6.4 cm. Overall, the mean complication rate for all techniques ranged from 0% to 50%. Post-operative satisfaction was reported in 10 (83%) studies, 7 of which used a validated scale. Patients were generally satisfied, with reported satisfaction rates ranging from 77% to 100%. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: While numerous procedures have been described, the significant limitations in the available data preclude identifying a single superior procedure. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: The significant heterogeneity in the reported literature is a limitation of this study and highlights the need for standardized reporting. However, this study is the first to analyze augmentation phalloplasty literature in the setting of acquired penile shortening. CONCLUSION: Augmentation phalloplasty techniques for acquired penile shortening are evolving and are continuously being modified; best-practice guidelines are crucial to achieve safe and satisfactory outcomes in this population. Abu-Ghname A, Banuelos J, Davis MJ, et al. Augmentation Phalloplasty for Acquired Penile Shortening: A Systematic Review of Techniques, Outcomes, Patient Satisfaction, and Limitations. J Sex Med 2020;17:331-341.
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 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".