Zhonghua nan ke xue = National journal of andrology · 2015
[Clinical effect of circumcision stapler in the treatment of phimosis and redundant prepuce].
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.
Huo Zhong-chao, Liu Gang, Wang Wei, He Da-guang, Yu Hai, Fan Wen-ju, Zhong Zheng
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To observe the clinical effect and safety of circumcision stapler in the treatment of phimosis and redundant prepuce.
METHODS: We treated 120 patients with redundant prepuce or phimosis using circumcision stapler and another 60 by conventional dorsal-incision circumcision. We observed intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative pain, wound healing time, cosmetic appearance of the penis, and postoperative complications and compared them between the two groups of patients.
RESULTS: Stapler circumcision showed obvious advantages over the conventional method in intraoperative blood loss ([2. 3 ± 1. 3] vs [15.6 ± 2.9] ml), operation time ([7.1 ± 1.4] vs [22.6 ± 4.6] min), wound healing time ([12.0 ± 2.9] as [16.3 ± 3. 1] d), postoperative pain score (1. 9 ± 1. 3 vs 5. 2 ± 1. 7), incision edema, and cosmetic appearance of the penis (all P <0. 05). Besides, stapler circumcision exempted the patients from stitch-removal pain. However, the incidence rate of postoperative local ecchymosis was significantly higher in the circumcision stapler group than in the conventional circumcision group (20. 8% vs 8. 3% , P <0. 05).
CONCLUSION: Circumcision stapler, with its advantages of easier manipulation, shorter operation time, better cosmetic penile appearance, less pain, and fewer complications, is superior to conventional circumcision in the treatment of phimosis and redundant prepuce.
METHODS: We treated 120 patients with redundant prepuce or phimosis using circumcision stapler and another 60 by conventional dorsal-incision circumcision. We observed intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative pain, wound healing time, cosmetic appearance of the penis, and postoperative complications and compared them between the two groups of patients.
RESULTS: Stapler circumcision showed obvious advantages over the conventional method in intraoperative blood loss ([2. 3 ± 1. 3] vs [15.6 ± 2.9] ml), operation time ([7.1 ± 1.4] vs [22.6 ± 4.6] min), wound healing time ([12.0 ± 2.9] as [16.3 ± 3. 1] d), postoperative pain score (1. 9 ± 1. 3 vs 5. 2 ± 1. 7), incision edema, and cosmetic appearance of the penis (all P <0. 05). Besides, stapler circumcision exempted the patients from stitch-removal pain. However, the incidence rate of postoperative local ecchymosis was significantly higher in the circumcision stapler group than in the conventional circumcision group (20. 8% vs 8. 3% , P <0. 05).
CONCLUSION: Circumcision stapler, with its advantages of easier manipulation, shorter operation time, better cosmetic penile appearance, less pain, and fewer complications, is superior to conventional circumcision in the treatment of phimosis and redundant prepuce.