|
|
|
| A Comparative Study on the Clinical Effects of Circumcision with Two Different Kinds of Disposable Circumcision Suture Devices |
| GAO Xue-lin, WANG Chun-yan, ZHENG Wan-xiang, et al |
| Xijing Hospital of the Air Force Medical University, shanxi xi’an 710000 |
|
|
|
|
Abstract 【Objective】To compare the clinical effects of improved disposable circumcision suture device and disposable circumcision suture device in circumcision. 【Methods】A total of 108 patients with long prepuce or phimosis from March to August 2018 were randomly divided into two groups. Patients in the observation group (n=56) received improved-disposable circumcision suture device, while patients in the control group (n=52) received disposable circumcision suture device. Operation time, intraoperative bleeding, number of cases of transfer surgery, postoperative pain, postoperative edema, postoperative nailing time, postoperative second operation, and postoperative satisfaction were compared between the two groups with different kinds of disposable circumcision suture devices. 【Results】There were no significant differences (P>0.05) in operation time (P=0.057), intraoperative transition to open (P=0.558), second operation (P=0.481), postoperative pain (P=0.27), or postoperative satisfaction (P=0.856). There were statistically significant differences (P<0.05) in intraoperative bleeding (P<0.001), postoperative edema (P<0.001), and postoperative nailing time. Intraoperative bleeding of the improved disposable circumcision suture device with silicone ring was better than that of the disposable circumcision suture device; the possibility of changing operation was less than the control group. At the same time, the postoperative edema was more obvious than the control group. The postoperative nailing time in the observation group was lower than that in the control group (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference of postoperative satisfaction between the two groups (P>0.05). 【Conclusion】Both kinds of disposable circumcision suture devices have their own advantages and disadvantages. Clinicians should choose suitable suture device according to their own experience and patient's condition.
|
|
Received: 15 January 2019
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 程跃.男性包皮外科[M].北京:人民出版社,2012:157.
[2] 万跃平,习明,程璐,等. 包皮环套术治疗不同年龄段包皮过长、包茎临床观察[J].医学临床研究,2016,33(3):427-429.
[3] 彭友林.一次性包皮环切吻合器与包皮环扎和传统包皮环切术的疗效比较[J].中国美容医学,2012,21(1):19-21.
[4] 马然,孙文学,张晨辰,等.应用一次性包皮环切缝合器与传统包皮环切术、 包皮环切吻合术的临床对比研究[J].中国性科学,2015,24(6):24-27.
[5] Wang JE,Zhou YF,Xia SX,et al.Safety and efficacy of a novel disposable circumcision device:A pilot randomized controlled clinical trial at 2 centers[J].Med Sci Monit,2014,20:454-462.
[6] Yuan YM,Zhang ZC,Cui WS,et al.Clinical investigation of a novel surgical device for circumcision[J].J Urol,2014,191(5):1411-1415.
[7] Bo-dong Lv,Zhang SG,Zhu XW,et al. Disposable circumcision suture device:Clinical effect and patient satisfaction[J].Asian J Androl,2014,16(3):453-456.
[8] Hou ZC.Use of disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision:a systematic review and meta-analysis[J].Asian J Androl,2017,19(3),362-367.
[9] 李佩丰,莫德扬,梁建波,等.缝合器式包皮环切术后的不良事件分析及处理(附376例报告)[J].中华男科学杂志,2016,22(5):471-473.
[10] 罗鹰,苏钢锋,桂学文.包皮切割缝合器手术操作改良[J].浙江临床医学,2018,20(7):1232-1234. |
| [1] |
. [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL RESEARCH, 2018, 35(10): 2041-2042. |
|
|
|
|
2020, Vol. 37 
