(040) Local Anesthesia Only for Penile and Scrotal Procedures: A Prospective Analysis of Patient Tolerability as an Alternative to Sedation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Traditionally, urological procedures utilize general or spinal anesthesia (GA) in an operating room (OR) to achieve adequate periprocedural pain relief. However, this approach presents various obstacles, including high OR related expenses, difficulties in accessing healthcare in rural areas, higher risk of anesthetic related complications and long wait times for patients due to limited OR space. This is particularly evident in penile and scrotal procedures, which often receive non-urgent treatment and result in wait times exceeding six months in Canada. The use of local anesthesia (LA) only is an appealing approach that has been gaining more traction in recent literature – however, no study to date has evaluated patient-reported tolerability to procedures conducted in this manner. Objective To investigate the surgical outcomes and patient-reported tolerability of penile and scrotal urologic procedures performed solely under LA. Additionally, information regarding complications is collected to provide data regarding the safety of this method, offering a viable alternative without the need for sedation. Methods This prospective study is registered as a clinical trial NCT05617261. Adult patients undergoing penile or scrotal surgery under LA only have been enrolled since August 2022, and is ongoing until August 2023. Procedures of interest include hydrocelectomies, spermatocelectomies, epididymectomies, testicular biopsies, circumcisions and frenulectomies. For scrotal procedures LA is administered along the median raphe along with a spermatic cord block, and for penile procedures a subcutaneous ring and dorsal penile block is utilized. Demographics, surgeon- and patient-reported visual analogue pain scores (VAS), and surgical variables are collected. Patient tolerability to the procedure and future anesthetic choice for a hypothetical repeat procedure are assessed at a follow-up appointment as our primary outcome. Complication data is also collected including recurrence (if applicable), emergency room visits, excess pain, hematoma & infection. Statistical tests include analyses to determine associations between demographic or surgical variables and patient-reported outcomes. Results Thus far, 215 patients are enrolled with complete follow-up data and statistical analysis on 72 patients. The mean age ± SD is 42.2 ± 16.4 years and there has been a 100% success rate with no perioperative complications or conversions to sedation or general anesthetic. Table 1 highlights the current patient demographic differences between those who do or do not recommend LA. Table 2 describes VAS at each point in time. On follow-up, 93.1% of patients indicated they would opt for LA for a hypothetical repeat procedure, with Figure 1 illustrating this by procedure type. Of the minority opting for GA, only 2 patients did so due to excess pain – highlighting that patient tolerability is not a limiting factor; instead, a desire to have no memory of the procedure is prevalent in this small cohort. Conclusions LA only is a promising technique for various scrotal and penile urologic procedures with high levels of patient tolerability. As we continue our analysis, we anticipate minimal complication rates similar to existing literature and data highlighting cost savings to our public health care system with a substantial reduction in patient wait times and surgical and recovery times – allowing for increased surgical efficiency and accessibility. 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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".