MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405220307 · doi:10.1093/jsxmed/qdae167.327

(339) SURGICAL OUTCOMES FOLLOWING OUTPATIENT INFLATABLE PENILE PROSTHESIS IMPLANTATION

2024· article· en· W4405220307 on OpenAlexaff
Maximilian Fidel, Jatin P. Shah, Dhiraj S. Bal, Carla Roque, Young Hyeh Ko, Harpreet S. Dhillon, David Chung, Alagarsamy Pandian, Jasmir G. Nayak, Premal Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Sexual Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSexual function and dysfunction studies
Canadian institutionsManitoba HealthUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOutpatient surgeryAmbulatorySurgerySedationPenile prosthesisAnesthesiaProsthesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Inflatable penile prosthesis (IPP) implantation is commonly performed in a hospital or ambulatory setting which accommodates overnight stay. Recent literature has demonstrated that IPP surgery is increasingly being performed as same-day procedures in outpatient settings, not requiring an overnight stay. The implementation of outpatient IPP surgeries aligns with trends in patient-centered care, efficiency, and optimal resource use, encouraging flexible and efficient healthcare delivery. Objective We sought to investigate the rate of complications amongst patients following day surgery insertion of an IPP. The following was collected within 6 weeks of their procedure, 1. infection, 2. hospital admission, 3. emergency/urgent care visit, and 4. additional prescription for analgesia. Methods A mixed-methods study has been performed since February 2023 of all patients undergoing day surgery insertion of an IPP at an outpatient ambulatory surgical centre. Only patients who are classified as ASA 1 or 2 and suitable for day surgery are deemed eligible for outpatient surgery. Patients were enrolled and consented on the day of the procedure. Patients were prescribed trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole BID 2 days before surgery along with a Dexedin/Hibiclens wash. Vancomycin and gentamycin were given pre-operatively. Intraoperative Irrisept wash was used during the case for irrigation and implant preparation. All procedures involved the use of a 3-piece prosthetic device and were performed under spinal anesthesia or deep intravenous sedation with local anesthesia using an infra pubic approach. Patients were discharged with a catheter and a drain. Post-operatively, gabapentin, celecoxib and acetaminophen were given for analgesia. Results Currently, 52 patients are enrolled in this study with a mean patient age of 62.5 ± 3.1 years. All procedures were performed successfully with no intra-operative complications. The mean procedure length defined as the time from incision to dressing time was 65.2 ± 17.9 minutes. The mean postoperative duration of stay defined as patient entry into the post-operative recovery room to the time they left the clinic was 115.85 ± 58.2 minutes. Patients were cleared to use the device after 6 weeks. One patient (1.9%) developed a wound infection treated with oral antibiotics, another presented to the emergency department for an untreated pneumonia and 4 patients (7.7%) required additional post-operative analgesia. No patients required hospital admission. Conclusions Our preliminary results demonstrate the safety and feasibility of performing an IPP in the outpatient setting, with rates of complications reflecting those reported in the literature. Safely performing these procedures in an outpatient setting can increase accessibility and reduce wait times while utilizing overnight facilities more effectively. 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Sexual MedicineSame topicSexual function and dysfunction studiesFrench-language works237,207