2种包皮环切器械治疗儿童包茎的疗效比较

曲巍; 刘廷; 姬西宁

doi:10.13201/j.issn.1001-1420.2019.08.014

2种包皮环切器械治疗儿童包茎的疗效比较

- 1. 中国人民解放军中部战区总医院汉口院区泌尿外科(武汉, 430010);
- 2. 武汉亚心总医院泌尿外科

详细信息

通讯作者: 刘廷,E-mail:quvei@aliyun.com

中图分类号: R697.1

收稿日期: 2018-02-27

Clinical comparison between two methods of circumcision with instrument in children with phimosis

- 1. Department of Urology, Hankou District of Central War Zone General Hospital, Wuhan, 430010, China;
- 2. Department of Urology Wuhan Asia General Hopsital

More Information

Corresponding author: LIU Ting, E-mail: quvei@aliyun.com

Received Date: 27 February 2018

摘要

摘要: 目的：将一次性包皮环切缝合器和内置式商环包皮环切吻合器应用于儿童包茎，对其临床疗效进行比较。方法：将我院2016年1月~2017年8月采用2种术式治疗的312例儿童包茎患儿（年龄5~12岁）随机分为两组，一组采用一次性包皮环切缝合器行包皮环切（缝合器组，n=154例），另一组采用内置式商环包皮环切吻合器行包皮环切（吻合器组，n=158），分别从手术时间、术后疼痛评分、切口愈合时间、术后并发症、外观满意度等方面对两组进行比较。结果：缝合器组的手术时间为（9.36±1.58） min，术后疼痛评分为（2.23±0.34）分，平均切口愈合时间为（10.96±2.63） d，并发症发生率为11.7%，外观满意度为97.4%；吻合器组手术时间为（6.43±1.38） min，术后疼痛评分为（4.32±0.75）分，平均切口愈合时间为（19.1±3.8） d，并发症发生率为5.1%，外观满意度为97.5%。缝合器组术后疼痛较轻，切口愈合时间较短（P<0.05）；吻合器组手术时间较短，并发症发生率更低（P<0.05）。两组外观满意度比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论：2种微创包皮环切术式均可以快速有效地治疗儿童包茎。虽然缝合器法术后恢复快及痛苦小，但是吻合器法安全性更高，更加适合于儿童。
- 包皮环切器械 /
- 包茎 /
- 包皮环切术 /
- 儿童
Abstract: Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy between two instruments for circumcision in children with phimosis.Method: A total of 312 children with phimosis were randomly divided into two groups.One group (154 cases) received circumcision with disposable circumcision suture device (DCSD group), another group (158 cases) received circumcision with disposable circumcision anastomat (DCA group).The operation duration, pain score after surgery, time for wound healing, rate of postoperative complications and rate of satisfaction with postoperative appearance were compared between two groups.Result: The operation duration, pain score after surgery, time for wound healing, rate of postoperative complications, rate of satisfaction with postoperative appearance were (9.36±1.58) min, (2.23±0.34) scores, (10.96±2.63) days, 11.7% and 97.4%, respectively, in DCSD group, as compared with (6.43±1.38) min, (4.32±0.75) scores, (19.1±3.8) days, 5.1% and 97.5% in DCA group.Compared with DCSD group, the DCA group had a greater pain score after surgery and longer time for wound healing, but a shorter operation time and less rate of postoperative complications (P<0.05).However, there was no statistical difference between the two groups concerning rate of satisfaction with postoperative appearance (P>0.05).Conclusion: Both DCSD and DCA are effective approaches to circumcision in children with phimosis.Although DCSD group has a more rapid recovery and less suffering, DCA is more secure and worthy of being popularized in children.
- circumcision apparatus /
- phimosis /
- circumcision /
- children

HTML全文

参考文献(14)

[1]	Chan I H, Wong K K.Common urological problems in children:prepuce, phimosis, and buried penis[J].Hong Kong Med J, 2016, 22 (3):263-269.
[2]	刘增钦, 杨江根, 张忠, 等.两种环切器治疗成人包皮过长的疗效比较[J].临床泌尿外科杂志, 2015, 30 (8):733-736.
[3]	Wang H, Chen N, Huo R, et al.Evaluation of clinical curative effects of disposable stitching instrument in redundant prepuce patients[J].Exp Ther Med, 2017, 14 (1):298-302.
[4]	Huang C, Song P, Xu C, et al.Comparative efficacy and safety of different circumcisions for patients with redundant prepuce or phimosis:A network meta-analysis[J].Int J Surg, 2017, 43:17-25.
[5]	Han H, Xie D W, Zhou X G, et al.Novel penile circumcision suturing devices versus the shang ring for adult male circumcision:aprospective study[J].Int Braz JUrol, 2017, 43 (4):736-745.
[6]	Wan S, Wang Y, Gu S.Epidemiology of male genital abnormalities:apopulation study[J].Pediatrics, 2014, 133 (3):e624-e627.
[7]	Lourençāo P L T A, Queiroz D S, de-Oliveira WE Junior, et al.Observation time and spontaneous resolution of primary phimosis in children[J].Rev Col Bras Cir, 2017, 44 (5):505-510.
[8]	Thorup J, Thorup S C, Ifaoui I B.Complication rate after circumcision in a paediatric surgical setting should not be neglected[J].Dan Med J, 2013, 60 (8):A4681.
[9]	Zhang Z, Yang B, Yu W, et al.Application of a novel disposable suture device in circumcision:aprospective non-randomized controlled study[J].Int Urol Nephrol, 2016, 48 (4):465-473.
[10]	季明勇, 常德贵, 白松林, 等.三种包皮环切术的临床应用比较[J].临床泌尿外科杂志, 2014, 29 (11):990-996.
[11]	Wilson C A, Sommerfield D, Drake-Brockman T F E, et al.A prospective audit of pain profiles following general and urological surgery in children[J].Paediatr Anaesth, 2017, 27 (11):1155-1164.
[12]	朱熙昀, 徐政杰, 王玉伟, 等.包皮自动切除环与一次性包皮环切缝合器治疗小儿包茎疗效比较[J].宁夏医科大学学报, 2015, 37 (2):214-215.
[13]	林剑峰, 梁福律, 涂建平, 等.一次性包皮环切缝合器与商环治疗包皮过长和包茎的临床疗效对比[J].中国性医学, 2016, 25 (11):22-24.
[14]	周其赵, 吴荷花, 夏慧, 等.包皮环切缝合器在儿童包茎术中的应用及术后并发症的治疗策略[J].实用医学杂志, 2016, 32 (21):3537-3539.