应用一次性包皮环切缝合器与传统包皮环切术、包皮环切吻合术的临床对比研究  

Comparative study of the application of disposable circumcision suture device,conventional circumcision and circumcisionanastomosis

作　　者：马然[1] 孙文学[1] 张晨辰[1] 蒋新国[1] 李良[1] 车玉胤 张波[1] 

机构地区：[1]北京市昌平区医院泌尿外科,北京102200

出　　处：《中国性科学》2015年第6期24-27,共4页Chinese Journal of Human Sexuality

摘　　要：目的:比较传统包皮环切术、包皮环切吻合术和包皮环切缝合术治疗包皮过长或包茎患者的临床疗效。方法:回顾性分析我院泌尿外科门诊采用传统包皮环切术(n=50)、包皮环切吻合术(n=49)和包皮环切缝合术(n=48)治疗包皮过长或包茎147例患者的临床资料,比较3种术式的手术时间、术中出血量、术后2h和7d视觉模拟疼痛评分、术后并发症、包皮水肿、创口愈合时间、患者对术后外观满意程度及围手术期费用等指标。结果:包皮环切吻合术和包皮环切缝合术在手术时间、术中出血量和外观满意度上要优于传统包皮环切术(P<0.05)。传统包皮环切术和包皮环切缝合术在术后7d视觉疼痛模拟评分、创口愈合时间和术后水肿上要优于包皮环切吻合术(P<0.05),在术后2h视觉疼痛模拟评分上差于包皮环切吻合术(P<0.05)。传统包皮环切术、包皮环切吻合术和包皮环切缝合术的围手术期费用分别为(543.8±33.9)元、(1137.6±99.9)元、(1253.4±652.6)元,且3种术式存在显著性差异(P<0.05)。结论:3种术式各有优缺点,包皮环切缝合术操作方法简单、手术时间短、出血量少、包皮外观满意度高、疼痛较轻、术后并发症少,但是伤口愈合时间较长,费用较高。Objectives： To compare the clinical effects of conventional circumcision, disposable circumci sion anastomosis and disposable circumcision suture device （DCSD） in the treatment of redundant prepuce and phi mosis. Methods： The clinical data of 147 patients with redundant prepuce or phimosis, 50 treated by conventional circumcision, 49 by disposable circumcision anastomosis and 48 by DCSD were reviewed. The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, 2 - hour and 7 - day postoperative visual analogue scores, postoperative complications, prepu- tial edema, incision healing time, degrees of patients＇ satisfaction with penile appearance and perioperative cost of the three groups were documented and compared. Results： As for the operation time, intraoperative blood loss and patients＇ satisfaction with penile appearance, disposable cireumcisiion anastomosis and DCSD were significantly bet- ter than conventional circumcision （ P 〈 0. 05 ）. The 7 - day postoperative visual analogue score, incision healing time and preputial edema in the conventional circumcision and DCSD groups were significantly lower than these in the disposable circumcision anastomosis group （ P 〈 0. 05 ）. The 2 - hour postoperative visual analogue score in the conventional circumcision and DCSD groups was significantly higher than it in the disposable circumcision anastomo sis group （ P 〈 0.05 ）. The perioperative cost in the conventional ciircumcision group, disposable circumcision anastomosis group and DCSD group were （543.8 ± 33.9） ￥ , （1137. 6 ± 99. 9）￥ and （ 1253. 4 ± 652. 6） ￥respectively. There was significant differences among the three kinds of operation （P 〈 0.05 ）. Conclusion： Each of the three circumcision methods has its own advantages and disadvantages. The DCSD is the simplest with short operation time, few blood loss, satisfied postoperative appearance of the penile, less pain and less postoperative complications, however, the wound healing time is long, and the cost is high.

关 键 词：包皮环切术 包皮过长 包茎 

分 类 号：R167[医药卫生—公共卫生与预防医学]