Objective: To observe the clinical effect and safety of circumcision stapler in children with phimosis and redundant prepuce. Methods: From July 2013 to July 2017, 40 children were prospectively randomized and assigne...Objective: To observe the clinical effect and safety of circumcision stapler in children with phimosis and redundant prepuce. Methods: From July 2013 to July 2017, 40 children were prospectively randomized and assigned to experiment group (circumcision stapler n = 20) or control group (conventional circumcision, n = 20). Outcomes were operation time, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complications. Results: There was significant difference between the two groups for operation time (5.35 min vs 30.30 min, P < 0.05) and intraoperative blood loss (2.56 ml vs 10.40 ml, P < 0.05) respectively. Conclusion: Circumcision staplers are superior to conventional circumcision for the advantages of shorter operation time and fewer blood losses.展开更多
This systematic review assessed the safety and efficacy of the disposable circumcision suture device （DCSD） and conventional circumcision （CC） in the treatment of redundant prepuce and phimosis. Two independent re...This systematic review assessed the safety and efficacy of the disposable circumcision suture device （DCSD） and conventional circumcision （CC） in the treatment of redundant prepuce and phimosis. Two independent reviewers conducted a literature search for randomized controlled trials （RCTs） using the DCSD and CC for the treatment of redundant prepuce or phimosis in China and abroad. Nine RCTs （1898 cases） were included. Compared with the CC group, the DCSD group had a shorter operative time （standardized mean difference [SMD] = -21.44; 95% confidence intervals [95% CIs] [-25.08, -17.79]; P 〈 0.00001）, shorter wound healing time （SMD = -3.66; 95% CI [-5.46, -1.85]; P 〈 0.0001）, less intraoperative blood loss （SMD = -9.64; 95% CI [-11.37, -7.90]; P 〈 0.00001）, better cosmetic penile appearance （odds ratio [OR] =8.77; 95% CI [5.90, 13.02]; P 〈 0.00001）, lower intraoperative pain score, lower 24-h postoperative pain score, lower incidence of infection, less incision edema, and fewer adverse events. There were no differences between the CC and DCSD groups in the incidences of dehiscence, or hematoma. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that the DCSD appears to be safer and more effective than CC. However, additional high-quality RCTs with larger study populations are needed.展开更多
文摘Objective: To observe the clinical effect and safety of circumcision stapler in children with phimosis and redundant prepuce. Methods: From July 2013 to July 2017, 40 children were prospectively randomized and assigned to experiment group (circumcision stapler n = 20) or control group (conventional circumcision, n = 20). Outcomes were operation time, intraoperative blood loss and postoperative complications. Results: There was significant difference between the two groups for operation time (5.35 min vs 30.30 min, P < 0.05) and intraoperative blood loss (2.56 ml vs 10.40 ml, P < 0.05) respectively. Conclusion: Circumcision staplers are superior to conventional circumcision for the advantages of shorter operation time and fewer blood losses.
文摘This systematic review assessed the safety and efficacy of the disposable circumcision suture device （DCSD） and conventional circumcision （CC） in the treatment of redundant prepuce and phimosis. Two independent reviewers conducted a literature search for randomized controlled trials （RCTs） using the DCSD and CC for the treatment of redundant prepuce or phimosis in China and abroad. Nine RCTs （1898 cases） were included. Compared with the CC group, the DCSD group had a shorter operative time （standardized mean difference [SMD] = -21.44; 95% confidence intervals [95% CIs] [-25.08, -17.79]; P 〈 0.00001）, shorter wound healing time （SMD = -3.66; 95% CI [-5.46, -1.85]; P 〈 0.0001）, less intraoperative blood loss （SMD = -9.64; 95% CI [-11.37, -7.90]; P 〈 0.00001）, better cosmetic penile appearance （odds ratio [OR] =8.77; 95% CI [5.90, 13.02]; P 〈 0.00001）, lower intraoperative pain score, lower 24-h postoperative pain score, lower incidence of infection, less incision edema, and fewer adverse events. There were no differences between the CC and DCSD groups in the incidences of dehiscence, or hematoma. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that the DCSD appears to be safer and more effective than CC. However, additional high-quality RCTs with larger study populations are needed.
