Dorsal shortening vs. ventral lengthening procedure for correction of congenital ventral curvature in patients with and without severe hypospadias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Debates remain on the ideal congenital ventral curvature correction among patients with and without severe hypospadias. Herein, we aimed to assess the comparative surgical outcome of dorsal shortening (DS) vs. ventral lengthening (VL) procedures for correcting congenital ventral curvatures. Method: A systematic literature search was performed in September 2021 using the PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, CENTRAL, ProQuest, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases. Comparative studies were identified and evaluated according to Cochrane Collaboration recommendations. Assessed outcomes included success and complication rates, which were extrapolated for the respective odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subgroup analyses were performed according to congenital curvature, with or without severe hypospadias or recurrent curvatures (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42021276193). Results: Based on pooled effect estimates from 12 studies with 430 (DS 253, VL 177) cases of ventral curvature repair, VL was able to render a better success rate for curvature correction (OR 4.20, 95% CI 2.11, 8.33) than DS repair, with comparable composite surgical complication rates (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.27, 2.18). Furthermore, subgroup analysis showed that the success rate remained significantly better for the VL approach among patients with associated severe hypospadias (OR 3.59, 95% CI 1.25, 10.26) and recurrent penile curvatures (OR 5.70, 95% CI 1.69, 19.21), but not among those with congenital curvature without hypospadias or those with mild hypospadias (OR 2.99, 95% CI 0.32, 27.57). Conclusions: In correcting congenital curvature associated with severe hypospadias and recurrent curvatures, VL procedures might render a modestly better success rate; however, careful selection of appropriate patients seems to be the crucial key to the best outcome. The surgical complication rate seems to be comparable between the two approaches.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".