Clinical effects of the circumcision stapler, foreskin cerclage, and traditional circumcision: A comparative study.
- Author:
Hui-dong MIAO
;
Jia-wei LU
;
Fu-nian LU
;
Feng SHEN
;
Xiao-lin YUAN
;
Hai-yong LIU
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH: Blood Loss, Surgical; Circumcision, Male; adverse effects; instrumentation; methods; Foreskin; Humans; Incidence; Male; Pain Measurement; Pain, Postoperative; diagnosis; Penis; abnormalities; Phimosis; therapy; Postoperative Complications; Postoperative Period
- From: National Journal of Andrology 2015;21(4):334-337
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVETo compare the clinical effects of the circumcision stapler, circumcision cerclage, and traditional circumcision in the treatment of phimosis and redundant prepuce.
METHODSUsing the circumcision stapler (group A), foreskin cerclage (group B), and traditional circumcision (group C), we treated 276 patients with phimosis or redundant prepuce. We made comparisons among the three groups in the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative and 24-hour postoperative pain scores, and incidence of postoperative complications. Results: The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and intraoperative pain score were (6.52 ± 2.45) min, (1.93 ± 0.82) ml, and 1.37 ± 0.68 in group A and (7.24 ± 1.86) min, (1.51 ± 0.72) ml, and 1.20 ± 0.79 in group B, all significantly lower than (28. 36 ± 4.22) min, (9.52 ± 3.29) ml, and 3.06 ± 0.75 in group C (P <0.05). The 24-hour postoperative pain score was remarkably higher in group B than in A and C (3. 18 ± 0. 82 vs 1. 85 ± 0. 63 and 1. 82 ± 0. 75, P <0. 05). The incidence rate of postoperative complications was markedly lower in group A than in B (5. 43% vs 14. 13%, P < 0.05), but with no significant differences between either A and C or B and C (P >0.05).
CONCLUSIONThe circumcision stapler, with its advantages of simple operation, minimal invasiveness, fewer complications, and better cosmetic result, deserves a wider clinical application.