Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2015
A modified surgical procedure for concealed penis.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Cheng Gong, Liu Bianjiang, Guan Zhaolong, Huang Yuan, Qin Chao, Song Ninghong, Wang Zengjun
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: We described a modified surgical procedure for repairing a concealed penis and compared the efficacy and feasibility of modified repair with traditional repair.
METHODS: From March 2003 to December 2012, 96 patients with a concealed penis were recruited to undergo penile repair at our centre. Modified repair and traditional repair were performed respectively on 46 and 50 cases. We compared operative time, intraoperative blood loss, cosmetic result of operative scars, postoperative penile retraction, and complications.
RESULTS: All operations were completed successfully without serious complications. The mean operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and cosmetic result of the operative scar between the two surgical methods were similar. However, the postoperative penile retraction rate in patients undergoing modified repair decreased significantly than in the traditional repair.
CONCLUSIONS: Our modified surgical procedure is effective and feasible for a concealed penis. Although extra procedures were needed for the modified repair, the operative time, intraoperative blood loss and cosmetic result of operative scar between the two procedures were similar. Compared with traditional repair, modified repair has better clinical outcomes.
METHODS: From March 2003 to December 2012, 96 patients with a concealed penis were recruited to undergo penile repair at our centre. Modified repair and traditional repair were performed respectively on 46 and 50 cases. We compared operative time, intraoperative blood loss, cosmetic result of operative scars, postoperative penile retraction, and complications.
RESULTS: All operations were completed successfully without serious complications. The mean operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and cosmetic result of the operative scar between the two surgical methods were similar. However, the postoperative penile retraction rate in patients undergoing modified repair decreased significantly than in the traditional repair.
CONCLUSIONS: Our modified surgical procedure is effective and feasible for a concealed penis. Although extra procedures were needed for the modified repair, the operative time, intraoperative blood loss and cosmetic result of operative scar between the two procedures were similar. Compared with traditional repair, modified repair has better clinical outcomes.