改良包皮环切术68例报告

医学研究证明,男性包皮环切后能减少艾滋病、梅毒等的患病率及降低女性宫颈癌的发生[1～2。]因此,受到医患双方重视,要求做包皮环切的患者逐渐增多。该手术的方式多种多样,且切除的多少等随意性较大,在实践中见到因切除过多影响阴茎勃起暂时性障碍,切除不够龟头暴露不全,术后出血及血肿时有发生,增加病人痛苦。     

改良袖套式包皮环切术治疗包皮过长及包茎体会

目的对改良袖套式的包皮环切术治疗包皮过长及包茎手术方式的选择及术后效果进行总结。方法回顾性分析2001～2007年206例实行改进的包皮环切术患者的临床资料,其中包茎50例,包皮过长108例,包皮过长伴包茎48例。结果206例患者术后8d拆线顺利,无感染及伤口裂开,拆掉缝线时无困难,151例伤口轻度水肿4d消失,剩余6例水肿6d水肿消失,所有患者切口均Ⅰ期愈合。结论包皮过长和包茎均可用改良的包皮环切术,但操作方法略不同,均能达到术后恢复快,外形美观,功能良好效果。     

包皮环切术的整形改良

目的 根据整形外科学原则对包皮环切术进行整形改良并与传统包皮环切术的优缺点做比较,从而选择最佳的手术方法和手术时机治疗单纯包皮过长.方法 包皮环切过程中保留阴茎浅静脉及浅筋膜,仅环形切除内外板之间过长包皮皮肤,且对阴茎系带处采取V形切口,减少包皮系带的损伤,最后内外板切口连续对位缝合.结果 2006年1月～2012年1月共治疗580例单纯包皮过长患者,手术后无出血和血肿、术区疼痛轻微、系带处无明显水肿感觉良好、包皮外形自然美观,部分病例随访3～6个月,延长射精潜伏期而性生活更加美满.结论 选择大于17周岁的单纯包皮过长患者,进行包皮环切整形改良术是非常行之有效的.     

包皮环切套扎术与传统包皮环切术的效果差异

目的 分析包皮环切套扎术与传统包皮环切术的效果差异,探寻更有利于患者的手术方式。方法 筛选的102例包皮过长及包茎患者,均在2019年12月—2021年12月于南安市仑苍镇卫生院进行手术治疗,随机分为对照组和观察组,各51例。观察组患者行包皮环切套扎,对照组行传统包皮切环术。比较两组手术进行时间、恢复时间、并发症、满意度等综合指标评估。结果 观察组手术时间为(6.7±0.5)min,包皮水肿时间为(5.4±0.3)d,切口愈合时间为(7.5±0.6)d,均短于对照组的(26.4±0.8)min、(9.1±0.9)d、(14.7±1.0)d,差异均有统计学意义(t=149.127、27.853、44.091,P<0.01、<0.01、<0.01);观察组并发症发生率为5.9%,低于对照组的27.5%,差异有统计学意义(χ²=8.541,P=0.003);观察组患者总满意率为98.0%,高于对照组的82.4%,差异有统计学意义(χ²=7.096,P=0.008)。结论 包皮过长、包茎患者的临床治疗中,包皮环切套扎术治疗相比传统包...     

阴茎包皮过长与STD及包皮环切术的治疗效果观察

本院泌尿及男科门诊对500例16-84岁男性就诊者临床体检时，就阴茎包皮过长及包茎情况进行了调查。     

包皮环扎术与传统包皮环切术临床疗效的比较分析

目的 比较分析包皮环扎术与传统包皮环切术的临床疗效.方法 收集2007年9月-2008年11月间来本院门诊就诊的包皮过长患者148例,其中行传统包皮环切术77例,行包皮环扎术71例,比较两组患者的手术操作、术后并发症及治疗效果.结果 传统包皮环切术需在神经根阻滞麻醉下由2位术者配合完成,而包皮环扎术不需麻醉,且由1位术...     

包皮环切新技术探讨

<正> 包皮过长和包茎是成年男子常见病,易引起龟头包皮炎的反复发作。是引发阴茎癌的主要因素,且性生活时易引起疼痛,可导致性失去和谐或心因性功能障碍。包皮环切术是治疗包皮过长或包茎的有效方法。传统包皮环切术术后易出血,引起血肿,刀口易感染。为减少患者痛苦,我院积极探讨包皮环切新技术,采用CO_2激光(CO_2激光机为长春市电控仪器厂生产)切割包皮,瞬康医用胶水(河南永城市科技实验厂生产,国     

改良新型一次性使用包皮吻合器在包皮环切术患者中的应用

目的总结改良新型一次性使用包皮吻合器在包皮环切术患者中的应用效果。方法选取2018年6月至2019年8月医院收治的包皮环切术患者96例作为研究对象,使用改良新型一次性使用包皮吻合器,观察并记录手术时间、出血量、愈合时间、水肿程度、外观满意度等指标。结果 96例患者均顺利完成手术,平均手术时间(6.2±1.3)min,平均出血量(0.9±0.2)ml,吻合钉及皮圈自行脱落时间(14.3±2.5)d,术后1个月中度水肿1例、轻度水肿1例,外观满意度为97.92%。结论包皮环切吻合器的出现使得包皮环切手术变得简单、高效,改进后的新型一次性使用包皮吻合器的操作更加便捷,患者术后痛苦更小,并发症更少,且患者对外观满意度高。     

三种包皮环切术的疗效比较

目的探讨应用一次性包皮环切环切器辅助包皮环切与袖套式包皮环切和传统包皮环切术式的临床疗效比较。方法对包茎和包皮过长患者,分别采用一次性包皮环切器辅助环切术、袖套式包皮环切术、传统包皮环切术,并对其术中综合情况、术后并发症及术后外观满意度相关因素进行比较。结果在手术并发症方面,袖套法及环切器辅助法行包皮环切术与传统组比较,有显著统计学意义（P〈0．01）,外观满意度方面,袖套法及环切器辅助法行包皮环切术与传统法比较,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论一次性包皮环切器辅助包皮环切术简单、安全、外观美观,值得临床推广应用。     

袖套式包皮环切术治疗包皮过长及包茎

目的:探讨袖套式包皮环切术治疗包皮过长及包茎的临床效果.方法:采用袖套式包皮环切术治疗包皮过长及包茎 32例.术中先标记好包皮内外板二个相互平行的环行切口,保留包皮内板约 0.5 cm,小圆刀切开至真皮层,其中腹 侧外板作倒" V"字形切口,防止术后包皮系带过短.小圆刀锐性剥离包皮条,保留完整的肉膜及浅层血管. 3- 0丝线 缝合切口.结果: 32例切口术中出血少,切口整齐,术后无继发出血及感染,切口无水肿,外形美观.结论:袖套式包 皮环切术对包皮过长及包茎的治疗较传统包皮环切术效果满意.     

Treatment of phimosis without circumcision and reconstruction of the prepuce following circumcision

Phimosis of the prepuce can be treated without performing a circumcision. The most common and most effective treatment option is the local application ofcorticosteroid ointment. Should this be insufficiently effective, then the constricted ring can be interrupted with two Z-plasties, which is sufficient to expose the glans penis painlessly. No skin is removed. The intervention may be performed under regional anaesthesia on an outpatient basis. In cases where reconstruction of the prepuce is indicated, this can be accomplished with a distally inverted flap of penile shaft skin combined with the application of free skin grafts.     

包皮环切技术的改进（附186例临床分析）

目的总结包皮环切术在包皮过长治疗中的经验。方法采用一次性包皮除去环对186例包皮过长及包茎患者施行新型环扎术以切除多余包皮：观察总结手术效果。结果手术时间平均只需8min,术中几乎无出血,所有患者均无继发出血、血肿、感染。术后1～3个月随访,测量包皮保留部分,切缘平整美观。结论包皮环切技术是对传统包皮环切术的简化和改进,具有应用简便、易于掌握、效果满意、并发症少等优点,是一种可供选择推广的包皮切除新方法。     

Attitudes and practices regarding circumcision in Turkey

BACKGROUND: In Turkey, circumcision is a necessity for boys to gain a masculine identity. In contrast to Western societies, where circumcision is performed in the neonatal period, it is performed at older ages in our population, and the timing may affect the psychosocial well-being of males. The person who performs the operation, a physician or a traditional circumciser, may affect their health as well. OBJECTIVE: To provide some information about the practice of circumcision in Turkey, such as timing, by whom and why it is performed in our country, and relation of their fathers' past emotions about their own circumcision to this current practice. METHODS: Questionnaires were filled out in face-to-face interviews with parents of 1235 male children under 16 years of age who attended well-child clinics of Gazi University Hospital and 10 different primary health care centres throughout Ankara, Turkey. RESULTS: Median age of circumcision was found to be 6 years. Only 14.8% of children were circumcised before 1 year of age. The main reasons for circumcision were religious and traditional. The medical benefits of the procedure outweighed the traditional reasons for only 15.2% of the families. The operation was carried out by a traditional circumciser in 13.3% of the children. Most of the fathers who could remember their own emotions about circumcision confessed that they had been frightened. They remembered the procedure as painful. Indeed, the mean age of their sons' circumcision was close to their own circumcision age. CONCLUSIONS: Traditions still play an important role in the timing of circumcision and by whom and why it is performed in Turkey. Changing times and educational levels do not seem to affect the traditional approach to circumcision.     

On remedicalisation: male circumcision in the United States and Great Britain

This paper compares the histories of male circumcision in the United States and Great Britain to explicate the theoretically important, yet inadequately specified, processes of demedicalisation and remedicalisation. Circumcision became medicalised to a similar extent, through similar processes, in both countries before World War II. However, by the 1960s, circumcision was almost completely demedicalised in Britain and almost universal in the US, where it became partially demedicalised after the 1970s. Medical professionals and insurance/healthcare systems drove demedicalisation in both countries; in the US, grassroots activists also played a critical role, while medical community ‘holdovers’ and parents resisted demedicalisation. Recent research linking circumcision to HIV prevention and deaths following religious circumcision are differentially likely to produce remedicalisation in the two nations, given differences in circumcision prevalence, HIV epidemiology, insurance/health systems, activism opportunities, and status of religious groups. Research on (de/re)medicalisation should theorise the life cycle of medicalisation, explore comparative cases, and attend more closely to medical holdovers from previous eras, prevalence and duration of medicalised practices, and barriers to promoting non‐medical interpretations.     

包皮环切术降低男性感染HIV风险的Meta分析

包皮环切术(MC)预防HIV通过性途径传播的效果是近年来艾滋病防控领域研究热点之一,全球已经开展了一些前瞻性队列研究,但是未得到统一的结论.本文针对目前一些前瞻性队列研究存在的分歧进行Meta分析,系统地评价MC与HIV感染的关系.     

流动人口包皮环切健康教育干预效果评价

目的评价在流动人口中开展包皮环切手术相关知识健康宣教的效果。方法于2010年5月—2011年6月采用流行病学现场干预试验,对重庆市流动人口采用发放健康宣教纸质和音像材料、大学生志愿者宣教、专家讲座等干预方法进行综合干预,干预后6个月进行干预效果评估。结果干预前后调查对象包皮环切手术知识得分分别为(4.64±0.13)和(8.41±0.03)分,差异有统计学意义(F=88.21,P<0.001);手术原因及益处为预防生殖器炎症或肿瘤、预防艾滋病及其他性传播疾病、保护性伴侣生殖健康的知晓率干预前分别为38.00%(209/550)、32.91%(181/550)、45.64%(251/550),干预后分别为66.91%(368/550)、67.27%(370/550)、56.88%(311/550),差异均有统计学意义(χ²=50.553、82.811、13.538,P<0.001);多因素logistic回归分析结果表明,干预前后知识得分的主要影响因素是:身边是否有人做过包皮环切手术和包皮环切手术相关知识基线得分。结论流动人口对包皮环切手术相关知识掌握较差,健康宣传教育可以有效提高其包皮环切手术知识水平。     

医学生包皮环切术接受意愿影响因素分析

目的了解重庆医科大学男性医学生对包皮环切术的认知状况及影响因素,为进一步提高艾滋病重点人群包皮环切术接受意愿宣传提供科学依据。方法采用自制问卷对整群随机抽样法抽取的580名1～4年级大学生进行横断面调查。结果男生对包皮过长或包茎的危害、手术常见原因有一定了解,但完全知晓率分别为39.65%(224/565)、7.69%(35/455);认为手术可以预防艾滋病及其他性传播疾病的占38.9%(177/455);不选择手术的原因:76.31%(190/249)觉得不影响健康、没必要,38.96%(97/249)担心手术风险,26.51%(66/249)不知道手术的医学益处,22.89%(57/249)担心影响性功能,15.66%(39/249)担心费用过高;当男生了解手术并发症发生率很低,而且可预防艾滋病及其他性传播疾病,保护生殖健康后,33.06%(81/245)愿意手术,40.82%(100/245)不确定。结论相关知识的掌握情况、手术的安全性和费用影响医学生对包皮环切术的接受意愿。