商环包皮环切术和一次性包皮环切缝合器行包皮环切的临床疗效对比研究

Comparison of the curative effect of circumcision by circumcision of quotient ring and disposable circumcision device

目的比较使用商环包皮环切术和一次性包皮环切缝合器行包皮环切的临床疗效。方法应用商环包皮环切术手术(A组)、一次性包皮环切缝合器环切术(B组)200例(每组100例)包皮过长、包茎患者手术治疗,通过观察术中出血量、手术时间和术中、术后24h疼痛评分、术口愈合时间,术口愈合满意度,术口感染、出血或血肿、包皮水肿等并发症对比分析。结果 A组和B组比较,术口感染、包皮水肿较多,术口愈合时间较长,术后包皮外观满意度较低,术后24h疼痛评分高,术中出血量、手术时间、出血或血肿无差异。结论一次性包皮环切缝合器作为一项新技术,其优越性明显,并发症少,患者满意度高,可以取代传统的包皮环切术。

Objective To compare the clinical efficacy of circumcision by circumcision of quotient ring and disposable circumcision device. Methods Two hundred cases with redundant prepuce and phimosis were treated and divided into two groups, 100 patients were treated by circumcision of quotient ring（group A） and 100 patients were treated by circumcision of disposable circumcision device（group B）. The intraoperative bleeding volume, operation time, intraoperative and postoperative 24h pain score, healing time, satisfaction of the healing, and complications such as oral infection, bleeding or hematoma, prepuce edema were compared and analyzed. Results Compared with the B group, oral infection, prepuce edema of A group were more, the healing time of A group was longer, the postoperative appearance satisfaction of A group was lower. The pain score 24 hours after operation was higher, and there was no difference in bleeding volume, operation time, bleeding or hematoma in the operation. Conclusion As a new technique, the disposable circumcision device has obvious advantages, less complications and high patient satisfaction. It can replace the traditional circumcision.