Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 6539030

Finney flexirod prosthesis.

R P Finney
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The experience gained from the implantation of 763 Flexirod Prosthesis is described. Special features of this design include a tapered distal tip which provides for better glans stability, a soft hinge which allows for improved penile concealment, and a trimmable tail which, together with preoperative measurement of the penis, allows the surgeon to determine the correct prothesis size well in advance of surgery. The surgical procedure is not difficult, the complication rate is low, device failure is extremely rare, and most patients are restored to a satisfactory sex life.

Explore related subjects

Evaluation Studies as TopicHumansMaleMethodsPenisProstheses and ImplantsScrotumSilicone ElastomersUrethraJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R P Finney. 1984. Finney flexirod prosthesis.. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(84)90247-4

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Effect of written feedback by editors on quality of reviews: two randomized trials.

CONTEXT: Better peer review is needed, but proven methods to improve quality are unknown. Our objective was to determine whether written feedback to reviewers improves subsequent reviews. METHODS: Eligible reviewers were randomized to intervention or control (receiving other reviewers' unscored reviews and the editor's decision letter). Study 1 (September 1998-September 2000) included reviewers with a median quality score of 3 or lower; study 2 (April 2000-January 2002), reviewers with median score of 4 or lower. Study 1 was designed with a power of 0.80 to detect a difference in score of 1; study 2, with a power of 0.80 to detect a difference of 0.5. All reviewers were at a peer-reviewed journal (Annals of Emergency Medicine). The main outcome measure was the editor's routine quality rating (1-5) of all reviews (blinded to study enrollment). RESULTS: For study 1, 51 reviewers were eligible and randomized and 35 had sufficient data (182 reviews) for analysis. The mean individual reviewer rating change was 0.16 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.26 to 0.58) for control and -0.13 (-0.49 to 0.23) for intervention. For study 2, 127 reviewers were eligible and randomized, and 95 had sufficient data (324 reviews). Controls had a mean individual rating change of 0.12 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.26) and intervention reviewers, 0.06 (-0.19 to 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: In study 1, minimal feedback from editors on review quality had no effect on subsequent performance of poor-quality reviewers, and the trend was toward a negative effect. In study 2, feedback to average reviewers was more extensive and supportive but produced no improvement in reviewer performance. Simple written feedback to reviewers seems to be an ineffective educational tool.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗