Practice patterns of Canadian penile prosthesis implanters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Penile prosthesis implantation is a well-established treatment for refractory erectile dysfunction; however, significant variations exist in surgical techniques and practice patterns, often influenced by individual surgeon experience and training. Our study aimed to identify these variations among Canadian implanters, assessing their approach to penile prosthesis surgery. METHODS: A cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was conducted to evaluate the practice patterns of Canadian surgeons performing penile prosthesis implantation. The study included implanters from all provinces who perform more than five cases annually. An anonymous electronic survey was distributed, assessing practice patterns, surgical approach, and recommendations for improving penile prosthesis surgery in Canada. RESULTS: Seventeen Canadian urologists performing over five annual cases participated in the study, with the annual volume varying among respondents. The majority (88.2%, n=15) routinely checked HbA1c levels, with 54.5% (n=6) using a cutoff of 8%. Additionally, 58.8% (n=10) routinely ordered a urine culture, and 94.1% (n=16) performed a preoperative scrub. Just over half (52.9%, n=9) prescribed preoperative antibiotics, the majority (88.2%, n=15) used an antibiotic dip, and postoperatively, 94.1% (n=16) of respondents prescribed antibiotics. Most implanters (76.5%, n=13) primarily used a penoscrotal approach, and 47.1% (n=8) did not routinely place a drain. Respondents also indicated perceived ways to improve penile prosthesis education across Canada, focusing on patient education and surgical simulation. CONCLUSIONS: While key aspects, such as the ideal surgical approach, HbA1c cutoffs, antibiotic regimens, and intraoperative techniques, remain debated, our findings underscore the need for further standardization. High-quality educational resources and consensus guidelines could help implanters refine their practice and improve patient outcomes.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".