MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391567183 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdae001.377

(392) Patient Outcomes Following Inflatable Penile Prosthesis Implantation in the Outpatient Setting

2024· article· en· W4391567183 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maximilian Fidel, Jatin P. Shah, Dhiraj S. Bal, Premal Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmbulatorySurgeryOutpatient surgeryOutpatient procedureImplantProspective cohort studyMedical prescriptionAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) is commonly performed in a hospital or ambulatory setting which involves overnight stay. However, recent literature has demonstrated that IPP surgery is increasingly being performed as same-day procedures in outpatient settings with patients not requiring overnight stay. Objective We sought to investigate the rate of complications following day surgery insertion of an IPP. The following was collected within six weeks of their procedure, 1. infection, 2. hospital admission, 3. emergency/urgent care visits, and 4. additional prescription for analgesia. Methods A prospective study is being performed since March 2023 of all patients undergoing day surgery insertion of an IPP at Men’s Health Clinic Manitoba (MHC). MHC is an outpatient ambulatory surgical centre. Only patients that are classified as ASA 1 or 2 and suitable for day surgery are deemed eligible for surgery at MHC. Patients are enrolled and consented on the day of the procedure. Patients were prescribed Bactrim BS BID two days prior to surgery along with a Dexedin/Hibiclens wash. Vancomycin and Gentamycin were given pre-operatively. Intraoperative Irricept wash was used during the case for irrigation and implant prep. All procedures involved a three-piece prosthetic device and were performed under spinal anesthesia with an infrapubic approach, with patients discharged with a catheter and a drain. Post-operatively, Gabapentin, Celebrex and Tylenol were given for analgesia. Results Currently, 15 patients are enrolled in this study with a mean patient age +/- SD of 64.3 +/- 8.2 years. All procedures were performed successfully with no intra-operative complications. The mean procedure length defined as time from of incision to when the dressing is placed on the surgical wound was 70.7 +/- 19.8 minutes. The mean post-operative duration of stay defined as patient entry into post-operative recovery room to time they leave the clinic was 135.6 +/- 78.8 minutes. Patients were cleared for device after six weeks. Thus far, no patients have required hospital admission or emergency room visits, nor have there been any documented cases of post-operative infection. 20% of the patients have required additional post-operative analgesia (n=3). Conclusions This study will aim to evaluate whether outpatient IPP implantation can yield a similar complication risk to those performed in an inpatient hospital setting. If successful, our findings could help increase accessibility and reduce wait times for patients as they could avoid limited hospital operating room use. Disclosure Any of the authors act as a consultant, employee or shareholder of an industry for: Boston Scientific.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.290 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207