包皮环切缝合器与环形吻合器及传统包皮环切术的前瞻性临床研究  

Prospective clinical study on comparison of the circumcision suture device, circular stapler and traditional circumcision in the treatment of redundant prepuce and phimosis

作　　者：景治安[1] 刘彦军[1] 李纪华[1] 胡和平[1] 毛长青[1] 吴辉[1] 冯占启[1] 

机构地区：[1]郑州市第一人民医院泌尿外科,河南郑州450004

出　　处：《中国现代医学杂志》2014年第3期47-51,共5页China Journal of Modern Medicine

摘　　要：目的应用一次性包皮环切缝合器(缝合器组)、一次性环切吻合器(套环组)及传统包皮环切(传统组)三种术式进行临床疗效比较。方法前瞻性选取包皮过长和包茎患者271例,其中缝合器组111例,套环组120例,传统手术组40例。采用三种手术方法对患者进行治疗,并比较三种手术的安全性、术式优越性及疗效。结果手术时间、出血量及愈合后外观方面套环组和缝合器组优于传统组(P<0.017);手术后感染、水肿、愈合时间和疼痛程度方面缝合器组和传统组优于套环组,差异有显著性(P<0.017)。结论一次性包皮环切缝合器进行包皮环切手术安全性好、痛苦小、并发症少,且较传统手术及套环手术效果更加满意,值得临床推广使用。[ Objective ] To compare the efficacy and complications of disposable circumcision suture device, circular stapler and traditional circumcision. [ Methods ] According to the wishes of patients, people who were receiving circumcision in our hospital were prospectively divided into three groups： disposable circumcision suture device （n =111）, circular stapler （n =120） and traditional circumcision （n =40）. Comparisons were made between the three groups in the operation time, blood loss, time of wound healing, postoperative pain score, postoperative complications and postoperative satisfaction with penile appearance. [ Results ] There were lower level in the circumcision suture device group than in the circular stapler and traditional circumcision group in the terms of operation time, blood loss, time to wound healing, postoperative pain score（P 〈0.017）. There were significant difference existed in the mean surgical duration, blood loss, time to wound healing, postoperative pain score and complications between groups （P 〈 0.017）. [ Conclusions] Compared with the circular stapler and traditional circumcision, disposable circumcision su- ture device is both safe and efficacy, it could own more advantages and less pain, less complications.

关 键 词：包皮环切缝合器 包茎 包皮过长 包皮环切术 

分 类 号：R699.8[医药卫生—泌尿科学]