Association Between Ejaculatory Dysfunction and Post-Void Dribbling After Urethroplasty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether ejaculatory dysfunction (EjD) and post-void dribbling (PVD) after urethroplasty are associated, providing evidence for a common etiology. METHODS: We reviewed a prospectively maintained database for first-time, anterior urethroplasties. One item from the Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSHQ) assessed EjD: "How would you rate the strength or force of your ejaculation". One item from the Urethral Stricture Surgery Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (USS-PROM) assessed PVD: "How often have you had slight wetting of your pants after you had finished urinating?". The frequency of symptoms was compared after penile vs. bulbar repairs, and anastomotic versus augmentation bulbar repairs. Associations were assessed with chi-square. RESULTS: A total of 728 men were included. Overall, postoperative EjD and PVD were common; 67% and 66%, respectively. There was a significant association between EjD and PVD for the whole cohort (p<0.0001); this association remained significant after penile repairs (p=0.01), bulbar repairs (p<0.0007), and bulbar anastomotic repairs (p=0.002), but not after bulbar augmentation repairs (p=0.052). EjD and PVD occurred at similar rates after penile and bulbar urethroplasty. The rate of EjD was similar after bulbar augmentation and bulbar anastomotic urethroplasties, but PVD was more common after bulbar augmentation (70% vs. 52%) (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSION: EjD and PVD after anterior urethroplasty are significantly associated with one another, supporting the theory of a common etiology. High rates after penile repairs argue against a bulbospongiosus muscle damage etiology, and high rates after anastomotic repairs argue against graft sacculation. More work is needed to better understand and prevent symptoms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".