Prospective Pilot Study: Tolerability of Outpatient Penile Plication Under Nursing-Administered Conscious Sedation vs Anesthesiologist-Administered Deep Sedation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Penile plication is commonly performed for Peyronie's disease under general or spinal anesthesia. Conscious sedation (CS) offers decreased anesthetic risks, cost-effectiveness, and the ability to perform the procedure in outpatient settings with shorter wait times. We sought to compare tolerability of penile plication under deep intravenous sedation (DIS) administered by anesthesiologists and nursing-administered CS (NACS). METHODS: Tolerability for penile plication was prospectively evaluated, excluding revision surgeries and those with hourglass or hinge deformities. DIS included midazolam and ketamine with infusion of propofol and remifentanil. NACS consisted of midazolam and fentanyl. Baseline characteristics, procedural information, and patient- and surgeon-reported pain assessments were collected. Patients were administered a standardized tolerability questionnaire on follow-up. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled (23 DIS; 17 NACS) with similar baseline characteristics. Median curvature of the DIS cohort was 55° (interquartile range = 43.75-76.25) and 45° (interquartile range = 45-60) in NACS. There was a 100% success rate with no procedure abortion or conversion to general anesthetic. On follow-up, all patients had functional curvature (<20°), and 100% of patients in the DIS and NACS cohorts reported that they would recommend CS to others. Over 93% of patients in both cohorts would choose CS over general anesthetic in the future, with no differences in perioperative and postoperative pain between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Penile plication with CS, whether administered by an anesthesiologist or nursing, is well tolerated with no differences in pain or complications. This indicates that outpatient penile plication with trained nursing staff administering CS can safely reduce costs, risks, and wait times.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".