Zhonghua nan ke xue = National journal of andrology · 2014
[Clinical application of the disposable circumcision suture device in male circumcision].
Аннотация на английскомСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Li Sheng, Zhang Lei, Wang Da-Wen, Yang Sen, Mu Hai-Qi, Nan Cun-Jin, Wu Tie-Lin, Zhu Shi-Jian, Chen Ying-He
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the safety and efficiency of the disposable circumcision suture device (DCSD) in the surgical treatment of phimosis and redundant prepuce.
METHODS: We randomly assigned 249 outpatients with phimosis or redundant prepuce to be treated with DCSD (n = 129) and by conventional circumcision (CC, n = 120), respectively. Then we compared the safety and efficiency of the two strategies.
RESULTS: Comparisons between DCSD and CC showed that the operation time was (4.02 +/- 0.69) vs (30.8 +/- 4.05) min, blood loss was (1.07 +/- 1.29) vs (8.72 +/- 2.15) ml, intraoperative pain score was 0.81 +/- 0.81 vs 2.42 +/- 1.15, 24-hour postoperative pain score was 1.84 +/- 1.02 vs 4.99 +/- 1.36, postoperative complication rate was 13. 95% (18/129) vs 9.17% (11/120), wound healing time was (13.99 +/- 9.06) vs (17.48 +/- 3.49) d, satisfaction with the penile appearance was 98.4% (127/129) vs 95% (109/120), and treatment cost was (2215.62 +/- 17.67) vs (576.47 + 15.58) Y RMB. DCSD exhibited obvious superiority over CC for shorter operation time, less blood loss, milder intraoperative pain, sooner wound healing, and better penile appearance, but it also had a higher rate of postoperative complications (P > 0.05) and involved more treatment cost than the latter (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The disposable circumcision suture device affords ideal clinical effects and therefore deserves clinical popularization.
METHODS: We randomly assigned 249 outpatients with phimosis or redundant prepuce to be treated with DCSD (n = 129) and by conventional circumcision (CC, n = 120), respectively. Then we compared the safety and efficiency of the two strategies.
RESULTS: Comparisons between DCSD and CC showed that the operation time was (4.02 +/- 0.69) vs (30.8 +/- 4.05) min, blood loss was (1.07 +/- 1.29) vs (8.72 +/- 2.15) ml, intraoperative pain score was 0.81 +/- 0.81 vs 2.42 +/- 1.15, 24-hour postoperative pain score was 1.84 +/- 1.02 vs 4.99 +/- 1.36, postoperative complication rate was 13. 95% (18/129) vs 9.17% (11/120), wound healing time was (13.99 +/- 9.06) vs (17.48 +/- 3.49) d, satisfaction with the penile appearance was 98.4% (127/129) vs 95% (109/120), and treatment cost was (2215.62 +/- 17.67) vs (576.47 + 15.58) Y RMB. DCSD exhibited obvious superiority over CC for shorter operation time, less blood loss, milder intraoperative pain, sooner wound healing, and better penile appearance, but it also had a higher rate of postoperative complications (P > 0.05) and involved more treatment cost than the latter (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION: The disposable circumcision suture device affords ideal clinical effects and therefore deserves clinical popularization.