一次性包皮环切缝合器在男性包皮环切术中的临床应用

目的:探讨一次性包皮环切缝合器在包皮环切术中的安全性及有效性。方法:将到门诊就诊的包茎和包皮过长要求手术的患者随机分成2组,采用两种手术方法,一次性包皮环切缝合器组129例,传统组120例,对其安全性及疗效性等方面进行对比。结果:包皮环切缝合器组和传统组手术时间分别为(4.02±0.69)min和(30.8±4.05)min;出血量分别为(1.07±1.29)ml和(8.72±2.15)ml,手术时疼痛评分分别为(0.81±0.81)分、(2.42±1.15)分;术后24 h疼痛评分分别为(1.84±1.02)分、(4.99±1.36)分;术后并发症发生率分别为13.95%(18/129)、9.17%(11/120);创口愈合时间分别为(13.99±9.06)d、(17.48±3.49)d;术后外观满意率分别为98.4%(127/129)、95.0%(109/120);治疗费用分别为(2215.62±17.67)元、(576.47±15.58)元;与传统手术组相比,一次性包皮环切缝合器组手术时间短,失血量少,患者痛苦小,创口愈合时间短,外观满意率高(P均0.05),但术后并发症发生率较高(P0.05),且治疗费用较高(P0.05)。结论:采用一次性包皮环切缝合器行包皮环切术时具有良好的临床效果,值得临床推广应用。

Clinical application of the disposable circumcision suture device in male circumcision

Objective ： To investigate the safety and efficiency of the disposable circumcision suture device （DCSD） in the sur- gical treatment of phimosis and redundant prepuce. Methods ： We randomly assigned 249 outpatients with phimosis or redundant pre- puce to be treated with DCSD （n = 129 ） and by conventional circumcision （CC, n = 120）, respectively. Then we compared the safety and efficiency of the two strategies. Results ： Comparisons between DCSD and CC showed that the operation time was （4.02 ± O. 69） vs （30.8 ±4.05） min, blood loss was （1.07 ±1.29） vs （8.72 ± 2.15） ml, intraoperative pain score was 0.81 ±0.81 vs 2.42 ± 1.15, 24-hour postoperative pain score was 1.84 ± 1.02 vs 4.99 ±1.36, postoperative complication rate was 13.95% （18/129） vs 9.17% （ 11/120）, wound healing time was （ 13.99 ± 9.06） vs （ 17.48 ±3.49） d, satisfaction with the penile appearance was 98.4% （127/129） vs 95% （ 109/120）, and treatment cost was （2215.62 ± 17.67） vs （576.47 ± 15.58） ￥RMB. DCSD exhibited obvious superiority over CC for shorter operation time, less blood loss, milder intraoperative pain, sooner wound healing, and better pe- nile appearance, but it also had a higher rate of postoperative complications （P 〉 0.05） and involved more treatment cost than the lat- ter （P 〈 O. 05）. Conclusion： The disposable circumcision suture device affords ideal clinical effects and therefore deserves clinical popularization.