A narrative review on the performance and outcomes of penile and scrotal surgery in the ambulatory setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Following the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical wait times have surged, creating a backlog in elective urological procedures. This review aims to address the need to explore ambulatory care for penile and scrotal surgeries, which can offer benefits by shifting these procedures away from traditional inpatient settings. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies confirm the safety and efficacy of performing penile and scrotal procedures in an ambulatory setting using local anesthesia (LA) or loco-sedative techniques. Of 616 reviewed cases, over 90% of patients expressed high satisfaction with LA and reported minimal postoperative complications. Pain management advancements, particularly the use of liposomal bupivacaine, reduced the need for opioids postoperatively. Importantly, no intraoperative complications or hospital admissions were reported, and adverse events were managed conservatively. The data highlighted in this review supports a move towards outpatient surgeries as a safe alternative to inpatient care for select cases. SUMMARY: This review highlights the strong potential for ambulatory urological surgeries to alleviate surgical backlogs significantly, while reducing strain on hospital resources, and maintaining high levels of patient satisfaction. As evidence continues to grow on the safety, feasibility, and effectiveness of LA in office-based procedures, expanding ambulatory urological will be quintessential in modernizing patient care and reducing healthcare burdens.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".