A novel disposable circumcision device versus conventional surgery in the treatment of redundant prepuce and phimosis.
- 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
;
Jian-Hua LI
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
- MeSH:
Blood Loss, Surgical;
statistics & numerical data;
Circumcision, Male;
instrumentation;
Disposable Equipment;
Humans;
Incidence;
Male;
Operative Time;
Pain Measurement;
Patient Satisfaction;
Penis;
abnormalities;
anatomy & histology;
surgery;
Phimosis;
surgery;
Postoperative Complications;
Postoperative Hemorrhage;
Postoperative Period;
Wound Healing
- From:
National Journal of Andrology
2017;23(11):1007-1013
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To compare the clinical effect of a novel disposable circumcision device Ring with that of conventional circumcision in the treatment of redundant prepuce and phimosis.
METHODS:Totally, 750 patients with redundant prepuce or phimosis underwent Ring circumcision (group A, n = 450) or conventional circumcision (group B, n = 300). We recorded the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) intraoperative pain scores, postoperative complications, wound healing time, and patients' satisfaction with postoperative penile appearance, followed by comparison of the collected data between the two groups of patients.
RESULTS:All the operations were successfully completed. Group A, as compared with B, showed significantly shorter operation time (［3.78 ± 0.42］ vs ［26.24 ± 3.99］ min, P <0.05), less intraoperative blood loss (［2.39 ± 1.01］ vs ［10.80 ± 3.57］ ml, P <0.05), lower pain scores intraoperatively (0.14 ± 0.36 vs 2.30 ± 1.46, P <0.05), 6 hours postoperatively (0.32 ± 0.78 vs 3.03 ± 1.56, P <0.05) and at the ring removal (3.35 ± 1.42 vs 2.78 ± 1.43, P <0.05), shorter wound healing time (［7.61 ± 1.60］ vs ［8.57 ± 1.37］ d, P <0.05), higher satisfaction with postoperative penile appearance (97.8% ［440/450］ vs 86% ［258/300］, P <0.05), and lower incidence of postoperative bleeding or hematoma (0.89% ［4/450］ vs 3% ［9/300］, P <0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed between groups A and B in the nocturnal pain score before the ring removal (1.45±1.02 vs 1.38 ± 0.92, P >0.05) or the postoperative incidence rate of edema (0.89% ［4/450］ vs 2.33% ［7/300］, P >0.05). There were no significant postoperative infections or delayed incision healing except for 1 case of wound dehiscence in each group.
CONCLUSIONS:Ring circumcision, with its advantages of shorter operation time, less blood loss and pain, higher safety, and better postoperative penile appearance, is easily accepted by the patients and deserves wide clinical application.
