International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology · 2017
Novel penile circumcision suturing devices versus the shang ring for adult male circumcision: a prospective study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Han Hu, Xie Da-Wei, Zhou Xiao-Guang, Zhang Xiao-Dong
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a novel penile circumcision suturing devices PCSD and Shang ring (SR) for circumcision in an adult population.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 124 outpatients were randomly assigned to receive PCSD (n=62) or SR (n=62). Patient characteristics, operative time, blood loss, return to normal activities time (RNAT), visual analogue scale (VAS), scar width, wound healing time, cosmetic result, and complications were recorded.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in blood loss, RNAT, or complications between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the VAS scores at theduring operation, and 6 or 24 hours after surgery (P>0.05). The wound scar width was wider in the SR group than in the PCSD group (P<0.01). Patients in the SR group had significantly longer wound healing time compared with those in the PCSD group (P<0.01). Patients who underwent PCSD wereere significantly more satisfied with the cosmetic results (P<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: SR and PCSD are safe and effective minimally invasive techniques for adult male circumcision. Compared with SRs, PCSDs have the advantages of faster postoperative incision healing and a good effect on wound cosmetics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 124 outpatients were randomly assigned to receive PCSD (n=62) or SR (n=62). Patient characteristics, operative time, blood loss, return to normal activities time (RNAT), visual analogue scale (VAS), scar width, wound healing time, cosmetic result, and complications were recorded.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in blood loss, RNAT, or complications between the two groups. There were no significant differences in the VAS scores at theduring operation, and 6 or 24 hours after surgery (P>0.05). The wound scar width was wider in the SR group than in the PCSD group (P<0.01). Patients in the SR group had significantly longer wound healing time compared with those in the PCSD group (P<0.01). Patients who underwent PCSD wereere significantly more satisfied with the cosmetic results (P<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: SR and PCSD are safe and effective minimally invasive techniques for adult male circumcision. Compared with SRs, PCSDs have the advantages of faster postoperative incision healing and a good effect on wound cosmetics.