Comparative outcomes and patient satisfaction rates of three tunical shortening techniques used for the correction of penile curvatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction rates after application of three different tunical shortening techniques - Yachia corporoplasty, Nesbit corporoplasty, and 16-dot plication - in patients undergoing surgery for congenital and acquired penile curvatures. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the postoperative outcomes of 68 patients who underwent penile curvature repair using one of three different surgical techniques between 2010 and 2023 and had been followed up for at least one year. Complications (if any) (e.g., penile shortening, loss of penile sensation, recurrence, presence of nodules, painful erection) and surgical satisfaction levels were assessed through medical records and telephone interviews. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients included in the study was 37.34±16.81 years. Yachia corporoplasty was performed in 27 (39.70%), Nesbit corporoplasty in 15 (22.06%), and 16-dot penile plication in 26 (38.24%) patients. There was no difference between the techniques in terms of surgical complications, such as shortening of penile length (p=0.096), loss of penile sensation (p=0.892), recurrence (p=0.302), and presence of nodules at the operation site (p=0.239), while painful erection was most common in the Nesbit corporoplasty group (n=5, 33.33%) (p=0.020). Postoperative dissatisfaction rate was highest in the 16-dot penile plication group (n=6, 23.07%) (p=0.557). There was a negative correlation between satisfaction level and recurrence in the 16-dot penile plication and corporoplasty groups (r=-0.516, p=0.006; r=-0.659, p<0.001, respectively). In addition, a negative correlation was observed between satisfaction levels, shortening of penile length, and presence of nodules in the corporoplasty group (r=-0.482, p=0.001; r=-0.320, p=0.044, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In patients who underwent penile curvature surgery using penile shortening techniques, low complication and high satisfaction rates were observed in all three corporoplasty techniques. Recurrence, presence of palpable nodule(s), and shortening of penile length are important parameters affecting the level of satisfaction.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".