Zhonghua nan ke xue = National journal of andrology · 2017
[A novel disposable circumcision device versus conventional surgery in the treatment of redundant prepuce and phimosis].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhao Yong-Jiu, Zhan Peng-Cheng, Chen Qiang, Cheng Wei, Ye Fu-Zeng, Wang Yi-Shui, Wang Jun-Jun, Li Jian-Hua, Tang Zhong-Mu
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effect of a novel disposable circumcision device Ring with that of conventional circumcision in the treatment of redundant prepuce and phimosis.
METHODS: Totally, 750 patients with redundant prepuce or phimosis underwent Ring circumcision (group A, n = 450) or conventional circumcision (group B, n = 300). We recorded the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) intraoperative pain scores, postoperative complications, wound healing time, and patients' satisfaction with postoperative penile appearance, followed by comparison of the collected data between the two groups of patients.
RESULTS: All the operations were successfully completed. Group A, as compared with B, showed significantly shorter operation time (［3.78 ± 0.42］ vs ［26.24 ± 3.99］ min, P <0.05), less intraoperative blood loss (［2.39 ± 1.01］ vs ［10.80 ± 3.57］ ml, P <0.05), lower pain scores intraoperatively (0.14 ± 0.36 vs 2.30 ± 1.46, P <0.05), 6 hours postoperatively (0.32 ± 0.78 vs 3.03 ± 1.56, P <0.05) and at the ring removal (3.35 ± 1.42 vs 2.78 ± 1.43, P <0.05), shorter wound healing time (［7.61 ± 1.60］ vs ［8.57 ± 1.37］ d, P <0.05), higher satisfaction with postoperative penile appearance (97.8% ［440/450］ vs 86% ［258/300］, P <0.05), and lower incidence of postoperative bleeding or hematoma (0.89% ［4/450］ vs 3% ［9/300］, P <0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed between groups A and B in the nocturnal pain score before the ring removal (1.45±1.02 vs 1.38 ± 0.92, P >0.05) or the postoperative incidence rate of edema (0.89% ［4/450］ vs 2.33% ［7/300］, P >0.05). There were no significant postoperative infections or delayed incision healing except for 1 case of wound dehiscence in each group.
CONCLUSIONS: Ring circumcision, with its advantages of shorter operation time, less blood loss and pain, higher safety, and better postoperative penile appearance, is easily accepted by the patients and deserves wide clinical application.
METHODS: Totally, 750 patients with redundant prepuce or phimosis underwent Ring circumcision (group A, n = 450) or conventional circumcision (group B, n = 300). We recorded the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) intraoperative pain scores, postoperative complications, wound healing time, and patients' satisfaction with postoperative penile appearance, followed by comparison of the collected data between the two groups of patients.
RESULTS: All the operations were successfully completed. Group A, as compared with B, showed significantly shorter operation time (［3.78 ± 0.42］ vs ［26.24 ± 3.99］ min, P <0.05), less intraoperative blood loss (［2.39 ± 1.01］ vs ［10.80 ± 3.57］ ml, P <0.05), lower pain scores intraoperatively (0.14 ± 0.36 vs 2.30 ± 1.46, P <0.05), 6 hours postoperatively (0.32 ± 0.78 vs 3.03 ± 1.56, P <0.05) and at the ring removal (3.35 ± 1.42 vs 2.78 ± 1.43, P <0.05), shorter wound healing time (［7.61 ± 1.60］ vs ［8.57 ± 1.37］ d, P <0.05), higher satisfaction with postoperative penile appearance (97.8% ［440/450］ vs 86% ［258/300］, P <0.05), and lower incidence of postoperative bleeding or hematoma (0.89% ［4/450］ vs 3% ［9/300］, P <0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed between groups A and B in the nocturnal pain score before the ring removal (1.45±1.02 vs 1.38 ± 0.92, P >0.05) or the postoperative incidence rate of edema (0.89% ［4/450］ vs 2.33% ［7/300］, P >0.05). There were no significant postoperative infections or delayed incision healing except for 1 case of wound dehiscence in each group.
CONCLUSIONS: Ring circumcision, with its advantages of shorter operation time, less blood loss and pain, higher safety, and better postoperative penile appearance, is easily accepted by the patients and deserves wide clinical application.