[Shang Ring versus disposable circumcision suture device in the treatment of phimosis or redundant prepuce] - PubMed
Comparative Study
. 2016 Jun;22(6):534-537.
[Article in Chinese]
Affiliations
- PMID: 28963844
Comparative Study
[Shang Ring versus disposable circumcision suture device in the treatment of phimosis or redundant prepuce]
[Article in Chinese]
Shi-Xian Wang et al. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2016 Jun.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the clinical efficiency of Shang Ring with that of the disposable circumcision suture device (DCSD) in the treatment of phimosis or redundant prepuce.
Methods: From June 2013 to March 2015, we treated 320 patients with phimosis or redundant prepuce using Shang Ring (n=158) or DCSD (n=162). We compared the operation time, intra-operative blood loss, incision healing time, postoperative complications, postoperative satisfaction, and treatment cost between the two groups of patients.
Results: Comparison between the Shang Ring and DCSD groups showed that the operation time was (5.6±1.3) vs (5.4±1.2) min, intra-operative blood loss (1.2±0.8) vs (1.3±0.9) ml, postoperative delayed hemorrhage 3.16% (5/158) vs 4.32% (7/162), incision healing time (16.1±7.2) vs (7.5±2.3) d, wound infection 15.82% (25/158) vs 7.41% (12/162), 1-month postoperative incision edema 29.11% (46/158) vs 9.26% (15/162), overall postoperative satisfaction rate 63.92% (101/158) vs 90.12% (146/162), and treatment cost (1121.2±15.6) vs (2142.6±10.8) RMB ¥. There were statistically significant differences between the two groups in the latter five parameters (P<0.05 ), but not in the first three (P>0.05 ).
Conclusions: The DSCD has an obvious superiority over Shang Ring for its relatively lower complication rate, shorter incision healing time, and better cosmetic appearance.
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（1121.2±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（P>0.05 ），后5项差异有显著性，缝合器组疗效均显著优于吻合器组（P<0.05 ），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。.
Keywords: Shang Ring; circumcision; clinical efficiency; disposable circumcision suture device.
Similar articles
-
[A novel disposable ring versus the suture device in circumcision].
Zhao YJ, Zhan PC, Chen Q, Cheng W, Ye FZ, Wang YS, Wang JJ, Tang ZM. Zhao YJ, et al. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2017 Dec;23(12):1093-1098. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2017. PMID: 29738180 Clinical Trial. Chinese.
-
Huang C, Song P, Xu C, Wang R, Wei L, Zhao X. Huang C, et al. Int J Surg. 2017 Jul;43:17-25. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.04.060. Epub 2017 May 15. Int J Surg. 2017. PMID: 28522221 Review.
-
Zhao YJ, Zhan PC, Chen Q, Cheng W, Ye FZ, Wang YS, Wang JJ, Li JH, Tang ZM. Zhao YJ, et al. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2017 Nov;23(11):1007-1013. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2017. PMID: 29738167 Chinese.
-
[Shang Ring scissor circumcision versus electrotome circumcision for redundant prepuce].
Tang XH, Zhang P, Ding H, Zhao JH, Tang LL, Fang Q. Tang XH, et al. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2016 Oct;22(10):877-881. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2016. PMID: 29278467 Chinese.
-
Huo ZC, Liu G, Li XY, Liu F, Fan WJ, Guan RH, Li PF, Mo DY, He YZ. Huo ZC, et al. Asian J Androl. 2017 May-Jun;19(3):362-367. doi: 10.4103/1008-682X.174855. Asian J Androl. 2017. PMID: 26975486 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Medical