World journal of urology · 2018
Longer length improvement and more covert incision: a single-center, prospective study of two innovative surgical methods "one stitch" and "four stitch" for pediatric buried penis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Lei Junhao, Luo Chunhua, Cheng Songtao, Yan Wen, Wang Xinghuan, Su Xinjun
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To introduce the detailed procedures of two innovative surgical options for pediatric buried penis and prospectively compare their efficacy and safety.
METHODS: A single-center, non-randomized, prospective study was conducted at the Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, where patients were operated on using the so-called "one stitch" (OS) or "four stitch" (FS) methods. The operation time, adverse events, and satisfaction were recorded for both groups.
RESULTS: Finally, 156 patients underwent the so-called OS (n = 65) or FS (n = 91) method, with a follow-up rate of 86.5% (135/156). During the perioperative period, the FS group spent much longer in surgery (P < 0.001), had more blood loss (P < 0.001), and took longer to recover from edema (P < 0.001) than the OS group. In contrast to the satisfaction after 12 months' follow up, both the objective length improvement (2.5 ± 0.6 vs 3.8 ± 0.5 cm, P < 0.001) and subjective satisfaction percent (86 vs 95%, P = 0.678) in the FS group were superior to those in the OS group. No significant differences were detected in postoperative infection, stenosis circle, scar hyperplasia, and relapse.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the two surgical options for pediatric buried penis are both safe and effective. The OS method has a simple procedure, so with shorter operation time and faster postoperative recovery; though the FS method with more complex procedure, patients can acquire a satisfactory improvement of penile length almost 4 cm and more covert incision at the midline of the scrotum. We primarily recommend the FS method for patients with moderate or severe buried cases; but for mild cases, we preferred the OS method.
METHODS: A single-center, non-randomized, prospective study was conducted at the Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, where patients were operated on using the so-called "one stitch" (OS) or "four stitch" (FS) methods. The operation time, adverse events, and satisfaction were recorded for both groups.
RESULTS: Finally, 156 patients underwent the so-called OS (n = 65) or FS (n = 91) method, with a follow-up rate of 86.5% (135/156). During the perioperative period, the FS group spent much longer in surgery (P < 0.001), had more blood loss (P < 0.001), and took longer to recover from edema (P < 0.001) than the OS group. In contrast to the satisfaction after 12 months' follow up, both the objective length improvement (2.5 ± 0.6 vs 3.8 ± 0.5 cm, P < 0.001) and subjective satisfaction percent (86 vs 95%, P = 0.678) in the FS group were superior to those in the OS group. No significant differences were detected in postoperative infection, stenosis circle, scar hyperplasia, and relapse.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the two surgical options for pediatric buried penis are both safe and effective. The OS method has a simple procedure, so with shorter operation time and faster postoperative recovery; though the FS method with more complex procedure, patients can acquire a satisfactory improvement of penile length almost 4 cm and more covert incision at the midline of the scrotum. We primarily recommend the FS method for patients with moderate or severe buried cases; but for mild cases, we preferred the OS method.