Under-recognized factors affecting penile implant satisfaction in patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Surgical management via penile prosthesis is an option for patients who have failed medical management. There is a paucity of literature surrounding factors contributing to patient satisfaction after implant surgery. The objective of this study was to characterize patients' and surgeons' attitudes toward factors affecting satisfaction with this procedure. METHODS: Two patient cohorts were identified and contacted via email: a medical management of erectile dysfunction (ED) cohort and a penile implant patient cohort. A third cohort, Canadian urologists who perform penile implant surgeries, was also contacted. The surveys consisted of 5-7 questions, including a rating question regarding the importance of various penile implant factors. RESULTS: Forty-six ED patients, 45 post-implant patients, and 12 urologists completed the survey. The mean overall satisfaction on a 10-point scale was 6.49 (standard deviation [SD] 2.92). Most (67%) urologists selected patient satisfaction as one of their least favorite aspects of penile implant surgery. Compared to postimplant patients, ED patients reported greater importance in the areas of appearance (p=0.035), soft glans (p=0.040), and concealment of implant (p=0.007). Urologists ranked natural feel (p=0.019) and generating a discrete erection (p=0.022) as less important than patients. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study that examines which specific variables of penile implant surgery are associated with satisfaction while comparing surgeons' understanding of what patients desire from this surgery. This study identifies several factors deemed important by patients but under-recognized by urologists. This knowledge can aid urologists in optimizing preoperative counselling and improving patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".