“商环”包皮环切术与传统包皮环切术疗效比较

目的探讨“商环”包皮环切术与传统包皮环切术的临床疗效。方法包皮环切术493例按治疗方法分为：商环组220例，传统手术组273例。比较二组手术时间、出血量、伤口疼痛、并发症（伤口水肿、裂开、感染、出血），愈合时间，患者满意率，总治疗费用等相关指标。结果所有病人手术均顺利，并获得满意效果。二组各观察指标比较，手术时间、出血量、伤口疼痛、并发症（伤口水肿，裂开）、伤口愈合时间、手术费用等均存在统计学意义（P〈0．05），术后并发症（伤口感染，出血）、患者满意率无明显统计学意义。结论两种手术方式均能获得满意疗效，相比之下“商环”包皮环切具有手术时间短，术中出血少、术后疼痛轻、切缘整齐等优势，但其术后愈合时间较长，术后伤口水肿、裂开发生率及总费用相对较高。因此，临床选择何种手术方式应权衡利弊，充分考虑患者及家属意愿。

Efficacy Comparison between Quotient Ring and Conventional Circumcision

Objective To compare the effectiveness of Quotient Ring and conventional circumcision. Methods 493 patients were assigned to Quotient Ring group （n=220）and conventional group（ n = 273 ）. Duration of operation, amount of bleeding, wound pain, complications （ wound edema and dehiscence）, healing time, satisfaction rate and cost of treatment were all compared. Results All operations were successful and satisfactory. There were significant difference in duration of operation, amount of bleeding, wound pain, healing time and cost of treatment between two groups （ P 〈 0.05 ）. There were no significant difference in complications （ wound edema and dehiscence） and satisfaction rate. Conclusion Two methods are all satisfactory. Quotient Ring circumcision has the advantages of less duration of operation and amount of bleeding as well as regular cutting edge. However, it also has the disadvantages of longer healing time,higher rate of wound edema and dehiscence as well as higher cost. Therefore, the aspiration of patients and their family need to be considered adequately.