Alternative surgical management of penile siliconoma using partial degloving and resurfacing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Siliconoma represents an inflammatory tissue response to extravasated silicone. Penile enhancing silicone injections have been described for over 50 years. Most of the publications report complications including negative effects on penile appearance and function which require corrective procedures. Penile circumferential skin and siliconoma excision with skin grafting has been described in multiple case reports and series as an effective and feasible option to remove the silicone and achieve good esthetic results. METHODS: We describe a simple and feasible single stage procedure removing the siliconoma with adjacent non-viable skin while preserving 50% of healthy penile skin and resurfacing the defect with a split-thickness skin graft to treat a long-term complication of penile silicone injection associated with recurrent infections and a chronic skin ulceration. CONCLUSION: Partial excision of the affected penile skin and sili-conoma with defect resurfacing with a split-thickness skin graft is a feasible with good functional and cosmetic outcomes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".