Anatomical Study of the Penile Suspensory System: A Surgical Application to Micropenis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Penile enlargement surgery is the second most desired cosmetic procedure in men worldwide. The mainstay of penile lengthening procedures is a partial release of the penile suspensory ligament system. Concerns regarding erect penis stability after this procedure have been raised by the surgical community. This study describes the anatomical features of the penile suspensory ligament system and explores the stability mechanisms of the penis. Methods: This study is subdivided in two parts: an anatomical analysis and a clinical analysis. The anatomical part consists of a dissection of eight male cadavers to describe the anatomy and test the stability after sectioning successively the suspensory ligaments. The clinical part consists of an analysis of 30 patients with micropenis operated on for penile lengthening by a penile suspensory ligament release and lipofilling. Results: The suspensory apparatus consists of four distinct ligamentous structures: fundiform, suspensory, dense vertical, and arcuate ligaments. These different structures are lax superficially but become firm and tense posteriorly. The section of the fundiform and suspensory ligaments did not destabilize the penis. Conclusion: Penile lengthening by way of cautious suspensory ligament release can be performed without erection instability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".