Search

Introduction Although the breakage and entrapment of the needles inside the penis during intracavernosal self-injection for erectile dysfunction treatment is a rare complication, when it happens, it can cause significant distress and anxiety to the patients who experience it. Aims Our work aims to report a case of retained penile needle and to compare it with similar cases in the literature to define the risk factors and the best practice to prevent and treat this complication. Methods We are reporting successful surgical removal of a deeply retained penile needle with the aid of intraoperative fluoroscopy after an unsuccessful attempt of ultrasound-guided removal in the emergency room. We searched the PubMed and Embase databases for similar cases and compared the findings across all the cases. Results In our case, the needle was initially superficial; however, excessive manipulation in the emergency room resulted in deep displacement into the corpus cavernosum. We were able to successfully localize the needle using intraoperative fluoroscopic guidance. The needle was then surgically removed via a small skin incision with minimal dissection of cavernosal tissue. We identified 15 reported cases of retained penile needles in the literature and performed a comprehensive comparison among all the cases. It is critical to search for specialized treatment with a urologist to avoid great damage due to erroneous manipulation of the corpora cavernosa. Conclusion Selecting patients with good manual dexterity is essential to avoid breakage and entrapment of penile needles during intracavernosal self-injection for erectile dysfunction treatment. The management of retained penile needles should be individualized depending on the clinical picture at the time of presentation. It is critical to avoid excessive manipulation as it can push the needle deeper into the penis and make the extraction more demanding.

To assesses the complexity, reliability, and quality of the most popular kidney cancer videos on YouTube.We searched YouTube using phrases relevant to kidney cancer and grouped videos based on publishing channel type. Video parameters along with complexity, reliability, and quality scores were recorded. Video complexity was determined using the SMOG index. SMOG scores greater than 6.4 equate to content that is too complex for the general public. Video quality and reliability was scored by 5 reviewers using the Global Quality Scale and a modified DISCERN criteria. All categorical and numerical variables were analyzed via independent t-test and 1-way analysis of variance using SPSS.One hundred twenty-one videos were analyzed. The most popular publishing channel types are professional development (n = 65), medical institutions (n = 27), student education (n = 9), and nonprofit organization (n = 4). Professional development videos are significantly more complex than medical institution videos (mean SMOG score of 11.1 vs. 9.4, P = 0.004), and nonprofit organization videos (11.1 vs. 7.8, P = 0.003). Compared to medical institution videos, professional development videos have fewer mean total views (876 views vs. 17,554, P = 0.016), mean views per month (14.92 views vs. 351.7, P = 0.007), and mean comments (1 comment vs. 18, P = 0.038). Both professional development videos and medical institution videos are more reliable than student education videos (mean DISCERN score of 3.9 vs. 2.9, P0.001).There is a lack of understandable and reliable kidney cancer videos on YouTube. Moreover, the majority of kidney cancer videos are intended for medical professionals and may be too complex for the general public. The medical community has the opportunity to make an active effort to provide better resources for patients on YouTube.