(1021) EARLY VS DELAYED INSERTION OF PENILE PROSTHESIS IN PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY PRIAPISM: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives To evaluate and compare the clinical outcomes associated with early versus delayed PP implantation in individuals with priapism-induced erectile dysfunction (ED). Methods We included studies that focused on refractory priapism leading to ED and its management with PP implantation. We assessed cohort study bias with the risk of bias tool and case series bias with the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using a fixed-effect model. Results We included nine studies, comprising four cohort studies and five case series, involving a combined total of 278 patients. Total complications were higher in the delayed group (OR 4.16; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.77 to 6.26). Fibrosis was significantly more pronounced in the delayed PP group, with an OR of 118.18 (95%CI 20.06 to 696.32). The odds of erosion, infections, and penile injury did not show statistically significant differences between the two groups (OR 2.52; 95%CI 0.67 to 9.49), (OR 0.89; 95%CI 0.38 to 2.10), and (OR 1.83; 95%CI 0.79 to 4.26), respectively. Patients' satisfaction resulted in a pooled OR of 0.15 (95%CI 0.04 to 0.49) in favor of the early PP insertion group. Conclusions The results from this study favor an early (within 30 days) approach to ED following ischemic priapism. However, it is important to consider patients’ preferences, values, and psychological factors to make an informed decision. Conflicts of Interest The authors of this paper declare no conflict of interests associated with this research.
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 | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".