(167) Penile Plication is Well Tolerated Under Conscious Sedation: A Prospective Comparison of Deep Intravenous Vs. Nursing Administered Conscious Sedation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Penile plication is a common and effective surgical treatment for Peyronie's Disease. Although generally performed under general or spinal anesthesia, patient tolerability of penile plication under conscious sedation (CS) has several advantages: reduced anesthetic risk, health care cost savings, decrease wait times, and the ability conduct in outpatient facilities. While CS would provide significant potential benefit, there have been no evaluations of patient-reported tolerability to penile plication completed under conscious sedation nor comparisons with varying administrations. Objective To evaluate and compare patient-reported tolerability of penile plication performed under two CS sedation approaches: (1) deep intravenous conscious sedation (IVCS) administered by anesthesiologists and (2) nursing administered conscious sedation (NACS). Methods We evaluated procedure tolerability in a prospective cohort of 40 adult patients (23 IVCS; 17 NACS) undergoing primary penile plication between August 2022 and May 2023. Revision surgeries, and those with hourglass or hinge deformities were excluded. IVCS patients were administered midazolam (5mg) and ketamine (20mg) along with a continuous infusion of propofol (25-50 mcg/kg/min) and remifentanil (0.05 mcg/kg/min). NACS sedation protocol consisted of midazolam (1-2 mg) and fentanyl (50-100 ug). Patient baseline characteristics, procedure information, pain assessments (Likert scale; 0 [no pain]-10[most pain]) made by the patient and surgeon before during and after the procedure were collected. Following a post-surgical healing period, patients were contacted and administered an evaluated standardized patient tolerability questionnaire. Overall patient tolerability, pain assessments, and complication rates were compared descriptively, and using Wilcoxon sign-rank tests and McNemar tests. Results Baseline characteristics were similar between IVSC and NACS groups. Median pre-operative curvature of the IVCS cohort was 55 degrees (IQR=43.75-76.25) whereas the NACS curvature was 45 degrees (IQR=45-60). There was a 100% procedural success rate with no intra-operative concerns leading to the abortion of the procedure or conversion to general anesthetic. At six-week post-operative follow up, all patients had functional curvature. 100% of patients in the IVCS and NACS cohorts reported that they would recommend CS to others. Additionally, 95% (19/20; CI95=75.3%-99.0%) of those undergoing IVCS and 93.3% (14/15; CI95=70.2-98.8%) of the NACS cohort would choose CS over general anesthetic if they had to undergo the same surgery again. Sedation choice did not differ between CS groups (p=1.0). Most patients reported no pain pre-operatively (IVCS:[18/20]; NACS:[13/15]; p=1.0), peri-operatively (IVCS:[16/20]; NACS:[13/15]; p=0.68), or immediately post-operatively (IVCS:[14/20]; NACS:[14/15]; p=0.20). Two-hour post-operative pain did not differ between groups (p=0.89). Median two-hour post-operative IVCS pain was 2.5 (IQR=0-5.0) whereas median NACS pain was 3.0 (IQR=1.5-3.0). Conclusions Penile plication is exceptionally well tolerated when completed under either anesthesiologist administered intravenous conscious sedation or nursing administered conscious sedation. Most patients would choose conscious sedation over general anesthetic for the procedure in the future and all would recommend conscious sedation to others. Self-reported pain did not differ between groups and most patients reported no pain pre-, peri-, or immediately post-operatively. These results suggest that penile plication surgery can be completed in an outpatient setting under conscious sedation administered by trained nursing staff, which is expected to decrease costs, risks and wait-times of the procedure. 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".