Zhonghua nan ke xue = National journal of andrology · 2015
[Clinical effects of the circumcision stapler, foreskin cerclage, and traditional circumcision: A comparative study].
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Miao Hui-dong, Lu Jia-wei, Lu Fu-nian, Shen Feng, Yuan Xiao-lin, Liu Hai-yong
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effects of the circumcision stapler, circumcision cerclage, and traditional circumcision in the treatment of phimosis and redundant prepuce.
METHODS: Using the circumcision stapler (group A), foreskin cerclage (group B), and traditional circumcision (group C), we treated 276 patients with phimosis or redundant prepuce. We made comparisons among the three groups in the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative and 24-hour postoperative pain scores, and incidence of postoperative complications. Results: The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and intraoperative pain score were (6.52 ± 2.45) min, (1.93 ± 0.82) ml, and 1.37 ± 0.68 in group A and (7.24 ± 1.86) min, (1.51 ± 0.72) ml, and 1.20 ± 0.79 in group B, all significantly lower than (28. 36 ± 4.22) min, (9.52 ± 3.29) ml, and 3.06 ± 0.75 in group C (P <0.05). The 24-hour postoperative pain score was remarkably higher in group B than in A and C (3. 18 ± 0. 82 vs 1. 85 ± 0. 63 and 1. 82 ± 0. 75, P <0. 05). The incidence rate of postoperative complications was markedly lower in group A than in B (5. 43% vs 14. 13%, P < 0.05), but with no significant differences between either A and C or B and C (P >0.05).
CONCLUSION: The circumcision stapler, with its advantages of simple operation, minimal invasiveness, fewer complications, and better cosmetic result, deserves a wider clinical application.
METHODS: Using the circumcision stapler (group A), foreskin cerclage (group B), and traditional circumcision (group C), we treated 276 patients with phimosis or redundant prepuce. We made comparisons among the three groups in the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative and 24-hour postoperative pain scores, and incidence of postoperative complications. Results: The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and intraoperative pain score were (6.52 ± 2.45) min, (1.93 ± 0.82) ml, and 1.37 ± 0.68 in group A and (7.24 ± 1.86) min, (1.51 ± 0.72) ml, and 1.20 ± 0.79 in group B, all significantly lower than (28. 36 ± 4.22) min, (9.52 ± 3.29) ml, and 3.06 ± 0.75 in group C (P <0.05). The 24-hour postoperative pain score was remarkably higher in group B than in A and C (3. 18 ± 0. 82 vs 1. 85 ± 0. 63 and 1. 82 ± 0. 75, P <0. 05). The incidence rate of postoperative complications was markedly lower in group A than in B (5. 43% vs 14. 13%, P < 0.05), but with no significant differences between either A and C or B and C (P >0.05).
CONCLUSION: The circumcision stapler, with its advantages of simple operation, minimal invasiveness, fewer complications, and better cosmetic result, deserves a wider clinical application.