A novel disposable ring versus the suture device in circumcision.
- Author:
Yong-Jiu ZHAO
1
;
Peng-Cheng ZHAN
1
;
Qiang CHEN
1
;
Wei CHENG
1
;
Fu-Zeng YE
1
;
Yi-Shui WANG
1
;
Jun-Jun WANG
1
;
Zhong-Mu TANG
1
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, The First People's Hospital of Xiaoshan, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 311200, China .
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
circumcision;
phimosis;
redundant prepuce;
suture device;
novel disposable ring
- MeSH:
Blood Loss, Surgical;
Circumcision, Male;
instrumentation;
Disposable Equipment;
Edema;
etiology;
Humans;
Male;
Operative Time;
Pain Measurement;
Pain, Postoperative;
Penis;
abnormalities;
surgery;
Personal Satisfaction;
Phimosis;
surgery;
Postoperative Complications;
etiology;
Postoperative Period;
Suture Techniques;
instrumentation;
Sutures;
Wound Healing
- From:
National Journal of Andrology
2017;23(12):1093-1098
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To investigate the clinical effect of a novel disposable ring versus that of the suture device in circumcision for redundant prepuce and phimosis.
METHODS:We randomly assigned 470 male patients with redundant prepuce or phimosis to receive circumcision with a novel disposable ring (the DR group, n = 235) or the suture device (the SD group, n = 235) and compared the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, pain scores, wound healing time, and postoperative complications and penile appearance between the two groups of patients.
RESULTS:All the operations were completed smoothly. Compared with the SD group, the DR group showed significantly shorter operation time (［7.49 ± 1.84］ vs ［3.83 ± 0.42］ min, P <0. 05), less intraoperative blood loss (［3.34 ± 2.59］ vs ［2.41 ± 1.01］ ml, P <0.05), lower intraoperative pain score (0.57 ± 0.76 vs 0.20 ± 0.47, P <0.05) and 6-hour postoperative pain score (3.42 ± 1.12 vs 0.48 ± 0.94, P <0.05), shorter wound healing time (［12.05 ± 2.80］ vs ［7.79 ± 1.65］ d, P <0.05), lower incidence rates of postoperative glans congestion or edema (36.17% ［85/235］ vs 2.56% ［6/235］, P <0.05), dysuria or strenuous urination (34.04% ［80/235］ vs 2.13% ［5/235］, P <0.05) and bleeding or hematoma (5.11% ［12/235］ vs 1.28% ［3/235］, P <0.05), and higher satisfaction with postoperative penile appearance (90.6% ［213/235］ vs 95.8% ［228/235］, P <0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the SD and DR groups in the pain scores at the sixth night after operation (1.31 ± 0.96 vs 1.34 ± 1.07, P >0.05) or while the staples scraping the underpants or at the ring removal (3.49 ± 1.22 vs 3.36 ± 1.41, P >0.05). No obvious postoperative infection or delayed healing was observed except for 3 cases of wound dehiscence (1 in the DR and 2 in the SD group) and 8 cases of delayed removal of the staples in the SD group.
CONCLUSIONS:The novel disposable ring, with its advantages of short operation time, less bleeding and pain, good penile appearance, high safety, and simple operation, is obviously superior to the suture device in circumcision and deserves to be applied and popularized clinically. .
