一次性包皮环切吻合器与传统包皮环切术的临床疗效分析

目的：应用一次性包皮环吻合器与传统包皮环切两种术式进行临床疗效比较。方法：随机对包皮过长、包茎患者,采用两种手术方法（吻合器组235例,传统手术组120例）在其安全性、术式优越性及疗效等方面进行对比。结果：在手术时间、术中出血量以及术后并发症等方面,包皮环吻合器切除组明显优于传统包皮环切组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）,且术后不需换药,切缘光整,外形美观。结论：应用一次性包皮环切吻合器进行包皮环切术,与传统常规手术比较,手术更加简单、方便、安全,并发症少,效果更加满意。符合现代微创手术要求,值得临床推广应用。     

改良单人运用一次性包皮环切缝合器行包皮环切术的疗效观察

<正>包皮环切术是治疗包皮过长、包茎最直接、最彻底的方法,目前常见的包皮环切术有传统包皮环切术、激光包皮环切术、袖套式包皮环切术、包皮环套术、一次性包皮吻合器环切术(商环)以及一次性包皮缝合器环切术。2013年曹赟杰等~([1])最早报道了一次性包皮环切缝合器行包皮环切手术,该材料借鉴了肠道吻合器的切割缝合原理,将包皮切割和缝     

包皮环扎手术与包皮环切术的疗效比较

目的:探讨包皮环扎术的临床效果.方法:将行包皮环扎术600例患者和包皮环切术40例患者,随访6个月,进行疗效比较.结果:包皮环扎术比包皮环切术的切除范围较标准,阴茎外观自然,并发症少,术后患者痛苦少,恢复满意,患者及伴侣性生活满意度提高.结论:包皮环扎术是一种疗效较好的包皮手术.     

三种包皮环切术的临床应用比较

目的:比较包皮环切缝合器手术、包皮环切吻合器手术与传统包皮环切术治疗包皮过长或包茎患者的临床疗效。方法:回顾性分析我院泌尿外科门诊采用包皮环切缝合器手术(110例)、包皮环切吻合器手术(105例)、传统包皮环切术(520例)治疗包皮过长或包茎的735例患者的临床资料,比较三种术式的手术时间、术中出血量、术后并发症等指标。结果:包皮环切缝合器手术、包皮环切吻合器手术在手术时间和术中出血量等方面要优于传统包皮环切术(P0.05);且三种术式在手术并发症上的差异均有统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:三种术式各有优缺点,最后的术式选择需根据患者的病情、年龄、经济状况、对美观的要求和手术者对不同术式的手术技巧的熟悉程度等多方面来综合考虑决定。     

一次性包皮环切缝合器手术与包皮环扎术、传统包皮环切术的临床疗效比较

目的:比较使用一次性包皮环切缝合器行包皮环切缝合术、包皮环扎术、传统包皮环切术治疗包茎、包皮过长的临床疗效。方法:应用一次性包皮环切缝合器手术(A组)、包皮环扎术(B组)、传统包皮环切术(C组)对276例(每组92例)包茎、包皮过长患者进行治疗,观察手术时间、术中出血量、术中及术后24 h疼痛评分(VAS),术后感染、出血(血肿)、水肿、包皮畸形等并发症的发生,并作对比分析。结果:A组、B组手术时间分别为(6.52±2.45)min、(7.24±1.86)min;术中出血量分别为(1.93±0.82)ml、(1.51±0.72)ml;术中疼痛评分分别为(1.37±0.68)、(1.20±0.79)均低于C组(28.36±4.22)min、(9.52±3.29)ml、(3.06±0.75),(P0.05);但B组术后24 h疼痛评分(3.18±0.82)明显高于A组(1.85±0.63)、C组(1.82±0.75),(P0.05);A组术后总体并发症发生率为(5.43%)低于B组(14.13%)(P0.05),A组与C组、B组与C组之间无差异(P0.05)。结论:使用一次性包皮环切缝合器行包皮环切缝合术操作简单、安全、微创、美观,值得进一步研究开发与临床推广应用。     

包皮环切术与包皮环扎术的优缺点比较

目的评价包皮环切术与包皮环扎术的优缺点。方法总结包皮环切术300例患者与包皮环扎术250例患者的回顾性资料,比较两种手术的疗效。结果包皮环扎术手术简单快捷,出血少,切除包皮标准,外观疤痕少,避免术后包皮粘连,但术后康复时间较长;包皮环切术手术时间相对较长,出血较多,术后疤痕较多,儿童术后易发生包皮粘连,但术后康复时间较短,并可完成一些包皮环扎术不能完成的手术。结论包皮环扎术操作简单,容易掌握,值得基层医院推广应用：包皮环切术作为一种传统的手术方式,仍有其不可替代的作用。     

包皮环切结合吻合器的应用治疗包皮过长

目的：探讨使用一次性包皮环切吻合器治疗包茎、包皮过长的临床应用效果。方法：随机将220例包茎、包皮过长患者分成一次性包皮环切吻合器（A组,112）与常规包皮环切（B组,108）两组,比较其优缺点及疗效。结果：A组比B组的手术时间短、出血少、术后不需拆线、术后感染率低、术后创缘整齐,外形美观。结论：应用一次性包皮环切吻合器行包皮环切术,手术简单,并发症少,患者痛苦小,易推广。     

一次性包皮吻合器与缝合器行包皮环切术的临床疗效比较

目的:比较一次性包皮环切吻合器与一次性包皮环切缝合器两种术式的临床疗效。方法:将自2013年6月至2015年3月来我院就诊的320例包茎和包皮过长患者随机分成两组,采用两种手术方法,其中采用一次性包皮环切吻合器158例,采用一次性包皮环切缝合器162例,对其安全性、疗效及术后并发症等方面进行比较。结果:吻合器组和缝合器组手术时间分别为(5.6±1.3)min和(5.4±1.2)min,失血量(1.2±0.8)ml和(1.3±0.9)ml,迟发性出血发生率分别为3.16%(5/158)和4.32%(7/162),花费(1 121.2±15.6)元和(2 142.6±10.8)元,伤口愈合天数(16.1±7.2)d和(7.5±2.3)d,术后伤口感染率15.82%(25/158)和7.41%(12/162),术后1个月水肿率9.26%(15/162)和29.11%(46/158)及患者随访满意度63.92%(101/158)和90.12%(146/162),两组比较前3项差异均无统计学意义(P0.05),后5项差异有显著性,缝合器组疗效均显著优于吻合器组(P0.05),但缝合器组花费贵于吻合器组。结论:应用一次性包皮环切缝合器进行包皮环切术,除费用较贵外,其疗效更好、并发症更少、患者恢复更快、满意度更高,值得在临床中推广应用。     

成人包皮环扎术与环切术疗效对比分析

目的探讨包皮环扎术治疗成人包皮过长、包茎的临床效果。方法对2009至2011年438例成人包茎、包皮过长手术随机分为环扎组226例、环切组212例,并随访3个月进行疗效观察比较分析。结果手术时间分别为包皮环扎组（5±2）min和包皮环切组（32±6）min（P〈0.05）。环扎术不需包扎,护理简单,但伤口愈合时间明显长于环切组（P〈0.05）,术后并发症发生率明显高于环切组。结论包皮环扎术治疗包皮过长、包茎术后并发症较多,增加了患者的经济、精神、生活负担,暂不值得临床推广,目前还是选择传统包皮环切术治疗成人包皮过长、包茎较为理想。     

一次性包皮环切缝合器与传统包皮环切术的临床疗效对比分析

<正>包皮环切术是泌尿外科门诊手术室最常见的手术,目前我院主要开展三种包皮环切术,即传统包皮环切术、商环包皮环切术及一次性包皮环切缝合术,我们发现应用一次性包皮环切缝合器在手术时间、出血量、术后疼痛、并发症、愈合后的美观度、患者满意度方面比传统手术有着更加明显的优势。我们对预的约包皮过长、包茎患者285例患者进行分组治疗,依据患者自愿原则对其中的145例包皮过长或包茎患者行传统包皮     

Clinical application of a new device for minimally invasive circumcision

Aim： To study the clinical effects of a disposable circumcision device in treatment of male patients of different ages with either phimosis or excess foreskin. Methods： One thousand two hundred patients between the age of 5 and 95 years underwent circumcision using this procedure in the 2-year period between October 2005 and September 2007. Of these cases, 904 had excess foreskin and 296 were cases of phimosis. Results： In 96.33% of the cases the incision healed, leaving a minimal amount of the inner foreskin with no scarring and producing good cosmetic results. There were no incidents of device dislocation or damage to the frenulum. The average operative time was 2.5 min for excess foreskin, and 3.5 min for phimosis. During the 7 days of wearing the device, mild to moderate edema occurred in 10.08 % of cases with excess foreskin and in 2.58 % of those with phimosis. Edema in the frenulum was seen in 1.67% of patients, and only 0.67% had an infection of the incision. A total of 86.25% of patients reported pain due to penile erection. After removal of the device, 0.58% of the cases had minimal bleeding around the incision, and 2.42% had wound dehiscence. Conclusion： The new device can be applied to an overwhelming majority of patients with phimosis and excess foreskin. This technique is relatively simple to perform, and patients who underwent this surgery had very few complications. Antibiotics were not required and patients reported less pain than those who were circumcised using conventional methods. Circumcision with this device requires minimal tissue manipulation, and is quicker and safer than circumcision using conventional techniques.     

中国商环包皮环切术与传统包皮环切术的临床对比研究

目的 对比分析中国商环包皮环切术和传统包皮环切术的疗效和手术并发症.方法 有完整随访资料的479例中国商环包皮环切术患者和354例传统包皮环切术患者,两组患者年龄、包皮情况比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).对比分析其手术时间、疼痛评分、失血量、术后并发症、术后外观满意情况、伤口愈合时间、治疗费用等.结果 商环组和传统手术组手术时间分别为(5±1)、(27±5)min;出血量分别为(0.98±1.14)、(8.30±3.60)ml;手术时疼痛评分分别为0.25±0.54、3.29±1.57;术后24 h疼痛评分分别为1.63±0.87、5.56±1.42;术后并发症发生率分别为6.89%(33/479)、13.28%(47/354);创口愈合时间分别为(20±5)、(13±2)d;外观满意率分别为99.79%(478/479)、92.37%(327/354);治疗费用分别为(871±52)、(554±46)元.与传统手术组相比,商环组手术时间短,失血量少,患者痛苦小,外观满意率高,并发症发生率低(P＜0.05).但商环组创口愈合时间较长,治疗费用较高(P＜0.05).结论 用中国商环行包皮环切术是对传统包皮环切术的简化和改进,具有手术时间短、术中出血量少、疼痛轻、术后外观满意度高、患者易于接受等优点.

Abstract：

Objective To compare the efficacy and complications of Chinese Shang Ring circumcision with conventional circumcisiom Methods Clinical data of 479 cases of Chinese Shang Ring circumcision and 354 cases of conventional circumcision with complete follow-up were analyzed.Comparisons were made between the two groups on operation time,pain score,blood loss,postoperative complications,postoperative satisfaction with penile appearance,wound healing time and treatment costs. Results There was no statistical difference in age and foreskin status between the two groups (P＞0.05).For the Shang Ring group,the operation time was(5±1)rain,blood loss was (0.98±1.14)ml,pain score during operation was 0.25±0.54,24-hour pain score after operation was 1.63±0.87,the postoperative complication rate was 6.89% (33/479),wound healing time was (20±5)d,the satisfaction rate of appearance was 99.79% (478/479),and treatment cost was (871±52) yuan.For the conventional group,the operation time was (27±5) min,blood loss was (8.30±3.60)ml,pain score during operation was 3.29±1.57,24-hour pain score after operation was 5.56±1.42,the postoperative complication rate was 13.28%(47/354),wound healing time was (13±2)d,satisfaction rate of appearance was 92.37% (327/354),and treatment cost was (554±46) yuan.Compared with the conventional group,the Shang Ring group had a shorter operation time,less blood loss,less pain score,higher appearance satisfaction rate and a lower complication rate (P＜0.05).But wound healing time was longer and treatment cost was higher in the Shang Ring group (P＜0.05). Conclusions Chinese Shang Ring circumcision is simpler and an improved approach over conventional circumeision with shorter operative time,less blood loss,less pain,relatively lower complication rate and higher satisfaction and acceptability.     

包皮过长的手术方式、经验和相关文献复习

目的总结一次性包皮环切缝合器、经典式及袖套式包皮环切术的经验,比较三种包皮环切术式的各自特点。方法回顾性分析于2014年7月至2016年7月期间在我院行包皮环切术(应用一次性包皮环切缝合器、经典式及袖套式包皮环切术分别为112例、123例及108例)患者的临床资料,比较三种术式手术时间、术中出血量、疼痛评分、术后并发症发生率、阴茎外观满意率等指标。分析三种手术各自特点和经验总结。结果应用一次性包皮环切缝合器、经典式及袖套式包皮环切术手术时间分别为5.6±3.5 min、25.6±6.7 min及34.3±5.4 min(P0.001),术中出血量分别为2.0±0.7 m L、12.3±5.8 m及4.1±2.3 m L(P0.001),术后24 h疼痛评分分别为3.1±1.1分、5.4±1.2分及3.5±0.9分(P0.001),术后并发症发生率分别为9.8%(11/112)、16.3%(20/123)及11.1%(12/108)(P=0.286),术后阴茎外观满意度分别为97.3%(109/112)、85.4%(105/123)及95.4%(103/108)(P=0.001)。以上数据比较,差异均有统计学意义。结论三组手术方式各有优缺点,应用一次性包皮环切缝合器操作简单、手术时间短、术中出血量少、术后阴茎外观满意率高,但费用偏高;而袖套式包皮环切术相对于经典式包皮环切术手术时间稍长,但术中出血量明显减少、术后疼痛评分低且阴茎外观满意度较高,因此,对于青春期男性及成人患者可考虑推荐袖套式包皮环切术。     

Disposable circumcision suture device： clinical effect and patient satisfaction

In our experience patients undergoing circumcision are mostly concerned about pain and penile appearances. We conducted a prospective randomized trial to assess the benefits of a new disposable circumcision suture device （DCSD）. A total of 942 patients were equally divided into three groups （conventional circumcision, Shang ring and disposable suture device group）. Patients in the DCSD group were anesthetized with compound 5% lidocaine cream, the others with a 2% lidocaine penile block. Operation time, intra-operative blood loss, incision healing time, intra-operative and post-operative pain, the penile appearance and overall satisfaction degree were measured. Operation time and intra-operative blood loss were significantly lower in the Shang ring and suture device groups compared to the conventional group （P 〈 0.001）. Intra-operative pain was less in the suture device group compared With the other two groups （P 〈 0.001）; whereas post-operative pain was higher in the conventional group compared to the other two groups （P 〈 0.001）. Patients in the suture device （80.57%） and Shang ring （73,57%） groups were more satisfied with penile appearances compared with the conventional circumcision group （20.06%, P 〈 0.05）. Patients in suture device group also healed markedly faster than the conventional group （P 〈 0.01）. The overall satisfaction rate was better in the suture device group （78.66%） compared with the conventional （47.13%） and Shang ring （50.00%） groups （P 〈 0.05）. The combination of DCSD and lidocaine cream resulted in shorter operation and incision healing times, reduced intra-operative and post-operative pain and improved patient satisfaction with the cosmetic appearances.     

传统包皮环切术和套环环切术在小儿包茎治疗中的比较分析

目的 比较分析传统包皮环切术和套环环切术在治疗小儿包茎中的利弊,为不同包茎患者选择环切术式提供参考.方法 对182例小儿包茎患者随机行包皮传统环切术或套环环切术,统计术前情况、手术时间和术后情况,对所有采集资料进行回顾性分析.结果 术前有粘连的小儿包茎患者术后愈合时间传统环切术[（9.14±2.71）d]较套环环切术[（13.01±3.12）d]更短（P＜0.05）,无粘连患者两种手术方式愈合时间差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）;手术时间套环环切[（6±1.8）min]较传统环切[（15±2.5）min]明显缩短（P＜0.01）;术后伤口裂开渗血、粘连及水肿等并发症的发生率套环环切术较传统环切术更低（P＜0.05）;术后疼痛持续时间传统环切术较套环环切术更短（P＜0.05）.结论 两种手术方式均为小儿包茎患者的有效治疗方法,套环环切术因手术时间短、操作简单、术后并发症少和切口美观的优点可作为首选治疗方式,但术前有粘连的小儿包茎患者更推荐行传统环切术.     

Foreskin preputioplasty and intralesional triamcinolone: a valid alternative to circumcision for balanitis xerotica obliterans

BackgroundWe previously reported our short-term experience of foreskin preputioplasty as an alternative to circumcision for the treatment of foreskin balanitis xerotica obliterans (BXO). In this study, we aimed to compare this technique with circumcision over a longer period.MethodsBetween 2002 and 2007, boys requiring surgery for BXO were offered either foreskin preputioplasty or primary circumcision. The preputioplasty technique involved triradiate preputial incisions and injection of triamcinolone intralesionally. Retrospective case-note analysis was performed to identify patient demographics, symptoms, and outcomes.ResultsOne hundred thirty-six boys underwent primary surgery for histologically confirmed BXO. One hundred four boys opted for foreskin preputioplasty, and 32, for circumcision. At a median follow-up of 14 months (interquartile range, 2.5-17.8), 84 (81%) of 104 in the preputioplasty group had a fully retractile and no macroscopic evidence of BXO. Of 104, 14 (13%) developed recurrent symptoms/BXO requiring circumcision or repeat foreskin preputioplasty. In the circumcision group, 23 (72%) of 32 had no macroscopic evidence of BXO. The incidence of meatal stenosis was significantly less in the foreskin preputioplasty group, 6 (6%) of 104 vs 6 (19%) of 32 (P = .034).ConclusionOur results show a good outcome for most boys undergoing foreskin preputioplasty and intralesional triamcinolone for BXO. There is a small risk of recurrent BXO, but rates of meatal stenosis may be reduced.     

应用一次性包皮环切缝合器与袖套式包皮环切术的临床疗效对比研究

目的:比较分析应用一次性包皮环切缝合器与袖套包皮环切术的临床疗效和手术并发症。方法:106例包皮过长(或包茎)患者按手术日期单双号分为一次性包皮环切缝合器组(50例)与袖套式包皮环切术组(56例)。比较两组患者的手术时间、术中出血量、术中疼痛程度、术后疼痛程度、切口愈合情况及术后并发症。结果:一次性包皮环切缝合器组与袖套式包皮环切术组手术时间分别为(31.38±2.93)min和(11.82±1.96)min;术中出血量分别为(1.14±0.94)ml和(7.89±2.31)ml;术中疼痛评分分别为(0.80±0.70)分和(3.02±1.22)分;术后24小时疼痛评分分别为(1.90±0.80)分和(4.45±1.03)分;术后并发症发生率分别为4.0%(2/50)和17.87%(10/56);切口愈合时间分别为(14.06±1.15)d和(14.39±1.57)d;外观满意率分别为98%(49/50)和83.93%(47/56)。与袖套式包皮环切组相比,一次性包皮环切缝合器组手术时间短、失血量少、术中及术后患者痛苦小、外观满意率高且并发症发生率低(P0.05),术后伤口愈合时间差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:应用一次性包皮环切缝合器是对袖套式包皮环切术的改进及创新,具有患者手术效果好、并发症发生率低、患者满意度高及易于接受等优势。     

The ultrasonic harmonic scalpel for circumcision: experimental evaluation using dogs

Male circumcision is one of the most commonly performed operations worldwide, and many novel techniques have been developed for better postoperative outcomes. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility of applying the ultracision harmonic scalpel (UHS) for circumcision by using dogs. Sixteen adult male dogs were divided into two groups: the UHS group and the control group. The dogs were circumcised with either the UHS or a conventional scalpel. The UHS circumcision procedure and the effects were imaged 1 week after surgery. The two groups were compared with respect to the operative time and volume of blood loss. Postoperative complications, including oedema, infection, bleeding of the incision and wound dehiscence, were recorded for both groups. The mean operative time for the UHS group was only 5.1 min compared with the 35.5 min of the conventional group. The mean blood loss was less than 2 ml for the UHS group and 15 ml for the conventional group. There was only one case of mild oedema in the UHS group, but the postoperative complications in the conventional group included two cases of mild oedema, one infection of the incision and one case of bleeding of the incision. In conclusion, circumcision using UHS is a novel technique to treat patients with phimosis and excessive foreskin, and this method has a short operative time, less blood loss and fewer complications than the conventional scalpel method. This small animal study provides a basis for embarking on a larger-scale clinical trial of the UHS.