Unaided Visual Inspection for Assessment of Penile Curvature in the Clinical Setting of Hypospadias Surgery: Survey of Members of Society of Pediatric Urology (India)

Q3 Medicine
V. Chandrasekharam, Ramesh Babu, D. A. Prasad, Ravula Satyanarayana
{"title":"Unaided Visual Inspection for Assessment of Penile Curvature in the Clinical Setting of Hypospadias Surgery: Survey of Members of Society of Pediatric Urology (India)","authors":"V. Chandrasekharam, Ramesh Babu, D. A. Prasad, Ravula Satyanarayana","doi":"10.4103/jiaps.jiaps_232_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n \n \n \n To compare the accuracy of unaided visual inspection (UVI) to Software App measurement (SAM) of penile curvature (PC) during hypospadias surgery.\n \n \n \n Seven clinical pictures of PC (15°–60°) taken during hypospadias repair were shared with 300 members of the Society of Pediatric Urology (India). The respondents were asked to assess the angles by UVI and indicate their preferred correction method of that PC. For each picture, the angles of curvature estimated by UVI were compared with the objective angle measured using an app (SAM), which was considered an accurate estimation. Statistical analysis was done using software; P<0.05 was considered as statistically significant.\n \n \n \n Ninety-one of 101 (90%) respondents preferred UVI to measure PC during hypospadias surgery. For 6/7 pictures, <40% of participants estimated the angle correctly by UVI (P < 0.001), with the difference in estimation being 3.6°–14.9°. For pictures with PC >30°, the error in UVI estimation was >10°, with no correlation between the accuracy of UVI estimate and surgeon experience. A significant proportion of surgeons chose the incorrect option for PC correction, which was the lowest (69%) for PC 35.8°.\n \n \n \n Most surgeons preferred UVI to assess PC; UVI is an erroneous technique to measure PC angle, especially in the PC range 30°–60°, where the error was >10°. Most errors were an underestimation of the PC, irrespective of surgeon experience. There was a significant error in the choice of technique for PC correction for a PC of 35°. These results strongly support the objective assessment of PC using SAM during hypospadias repair.\n","PeriodicalId":16069,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons","volume":"48 28","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jiaps.jiaps_232_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT To compare the accuracy of unaided visual inspection (UVI) to Software App measurement (SAM) of penile curvature (PC) during hypospadias surgery. Seven clinical pictures of PC (15°–60°) taken during hypospadias repair were shared with 300 members of the Society of Pediatric Urology (India). The respondents were asked to assess the angles by UVI and indicate their preferred correction method of that PC. For each picture, the angles of curvature estimated by UVI were compared with the objective angle measured using an app (SAM), which was considered an accurate estimation. Statistical analysis was done using software; P<0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Ninety-one of 101 (90%) respondents preferred UVI to measure PC during hypospadias surgery. For 6/7 pictures, <40% of participants estimated the angle correctly by UVI (P < 0.001), with the difference in estimation being 3.6°–14.9°. For pictures with PC >30°, the error in UVI estimation was >10°, with no correlation between the accuracy of UVI estimate and surgeon experience. A significant proportion of surgeons chose the incorrect option for PC correction, which was the lowest (69%) for PC 35.8°. Most surgeons preferred UVI to assess PC; UVI is an erroneous technique to measure PC angle, especially in the PC range 30°–60°, where the error was >10°. Most errors were an underestimation of the PC, irrespective of surgeon experience. There was a significant error in the choice of technique for PC correction for a PC of 35°. These results strongly support the objective assessment of PC using SAM during hypospadias repair.
尿道下裂手术临床环境中评估阴茎弯曲度的非辅助视觉检查:印度小儿泌尿外科学会成员调查
摘要 比较尿道下裂手术中阴茎弯曲度(PC)的辅助目测(UVI)和软件应用程序测量(SAM)的准确性。 我们与印度小儿泌尿外科学会的 300 名会员分享了尿道下裂修补术中拍摄的 7 张 PC(15°-60°)临床图片。受访者被要求通过 UVI 对角度进行评估,并指出其首选的 PC 矫正方法。对于每张图片,UVI 估测的曲率角度与使用应用程序(SAM)测量的客观角度进行比较,后者被认为是准确的估测结果。使用软件进行了统计分析;P30°时,UVI 估计值的误差大于 10°,UVI 估计值的准确性与外科医生的经验没有相关性。相当一部分外科医生在 PC 矫正时选择了错误的选项,其中 PC 35.8°的错误率最低(69%)。 大多数外科医生倾向于使用 UVI 评估 PC;UVI 是一种错误的 PC 角度测量技术,尤其是在 PC 30°-60° 范围内,误差大于 10°。无论外科医生的经验如何,大多数错误都是低估了 PC 角。在 PC 为 35° 时,PC 矫正技术的选择存在重大误差。这些结果有力地支持了在尿道下裂修复过程中使用 SAM 对 PC 进行客观评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons
Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons Medicine-Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
148
审稿时长
30 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons is the official organ of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons. The journal started its journey in October 1995 under the Editor-in-Chief Prof. Subir K Chatterjee. An advisory board was formed with well-versed internationally reputed senior members of our society like Late Prof. R K Gandhi, Prof. I C Pathak, Prof. P Upadhyay, Prof. T Dorairajan and many more. since then the journal is published quarterly uninterrupted. The journal publishes original articles, case reports, review articles and technical innovations. Special issues on different subjects are published every year. There have been several contributions from overseas experts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信