Urology · 2015
Comparison between Open Epididymal Cystectomy and Minimal Resection of Epididymal Cysts Using a Scrotoscope: A Clinical Trial for the Evaluation of a New Surgical Technique.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Yang Jin-rui, Wei Yong-bao, Yan Bin, Yin Zhuo, Gao Yun-Liang, Wang Zhao, Zhou Ke-qin
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To provide a new surgical technique for epididymal cyst (EC) treatment and to assess its safety and efficiency.
METHODS: Forty-eight patients with symptomatic EC were randomized into 2 groups. One group (n = 23) received traditional open epididymal cystectomy (OEC) and the other group (n = 25) underwent minimal epididymal cystectomy with scrotoscope (MECS), which provided a clear vision of scrotal contents. Demographic information and perioperative and postoperative outcomes data were obtained and analyzed during a 2- to 6-month follow-up.
RESULTS: No significant differences between the OEC and MECS groups were found in demographic information. Compared with OEC group, the MECS group had a shorter operating time (18.6 ± 2.9 vs 54.5 ± 7.0 minutes; P <.05), shorter incision length (1.1 ± 0.2 vs 4.8 ± 0.6 cm; P <.05), and less blood loss (4.6 ± 1.6 vs 17.0 ± 3.1 g; P <.05). Except for the 8.0% rate (2 of 25) of scrotal edema after MECS and 17.4% rate (4 of 23) of scrotal hematoma after OEC, both groups resulted in 0% incidence of testis or epididymis injury, wound infection, and cyst recurrence based on postoperative outcome data. Significant differences were observed after MECS compared with those after OEC based on the rates of symptom relief (95.2% vs 61.1%; P <.05) and days of wound pain (12.1 ± 2.6 vs 17.7 ± 4.1 days; P <.05).
CONCLUSION: For the first time, our study applied scrotoscope as a new alternative technique for EC treatment. Scrotoscope provides a clear field of vision and makes tissues harvested available for pathologic examination when performing decortications of EC. The results suggest MECS may be a safe, effective, and encouraging new technique.
METHODS: Forty-eight patients with symptomatic EC were randomized into 2 groups. One group (n = 23) received traditional open epididymal cystectomy (OEC) and the other group (n = 25) underwent minimal epididymal cystectomy with scrotoscope (MECS), which provided a clear vision of scrotal contents. Demographic information and perioperative and postoperative outcomes data were obtained and analyzed during a 2- to 6-month follow-up.
RESULTS: No significant differences between the OEC and MECS groups were found in demographic information. Compared with OEC group, the MECS group had a shorter operating time (18.6 ± 2.9 vs 54.5 ± 7.0 minutes; P <.05), shorter incision length (1.1 ± 0.2 vs 4.8 ± 0.6 cm; P <.05), and less blood loss (4.6 ± 1.6 vs 17.0 ± 3.1 g; P <.05). Except for the 8.0% rate (2 of 25) of scrotal edema after MECS and 17.4% rate (4 of 23) of scrotal hematoma after OEC, both groups resulted in 0% incidence of testis or epididymis injury, wound infection, and cyst recurrence based on postoperative outcome data. Significant differences were observed after MECS compared with those after OEC based on the rates of symptom relief (95.2% vs 61.1%; P <.05) and days of wound pain (12.1 ± 2.6 vs 17.7 ± 4.1 days; P <.05).
CONCLUSION: For the first time, our study applied scrotoscope as a new alternative technique for EC treatment. Scrotoscope provides a clear field of vision and makes tissues harvested available for pathologic examination when performing decortications of EC. The results suggest MECS may be a safe, effective, and encouraging new technique.