论文部分内容阅读
目的：分析比较应用“狼和”包皮环切吻合器与传统包皮环切术的临床疗效。方法依门诊单双日将包皮过长及包茎患者分为吻合器组（324例）和传统组（170例）。比较两组手术时间、术中出血量、术中疼痛评分、术后24h疼痛评分、切口愈合情况、满意度及并发症。结果手术均顺利完成。吻合器组和传统组的手术时间分别为（8.30±1.12）min和（23.21±3.43）min（<0.05）；术中出血量分别为（1.05±0.60）ml和（5.62±3.21）ml（<0.05），术中疼痛评分分别为（1.10±0.45）分和（3.35±1.62）分（<0.05），术后24h疼痛评分分别为（2.31±0.74）分和（5.08±1.80）分（<0.05），切口愈合时间分别为（7.2±2.2）d和（9.1±1.8）d（<0.05），满意度分别为97.8%和91.2%（<0.05）并发症分别为1.5%和3.5%。结论“狼和”包皮吻合器是一项简便易行、安全有效、微创、满意度高的包皮环切手术方式，值得临床推广。“,”Objective To compare the clinical efficacy between Langhe circumcision suture device and conventional circumcision. Methods Patients with redundant prepuce and phimosis were divided into disposable circumcision suture device group (n=324) and conventional circumcision group (n=170) according to the odd or even of the hospitalizing time. We observed the surgical duration, blood loss, intraoperative pain score, postoperative 24h pain score, wound healing time, postoperative satisfaction and complications between the two groups. Results The surgical duration, blood loss, intraoperative pain score, postoperative 24h pain score, wound healing time, postoperative satisfaction and complications were (8.30±1.12)min, (1.05±0.60)ml, 1.10±0.45, 2.31±0.74,(7.2±2.2)d, 97.8% and 1.5% in the disposable circumcision suture device group as compare with (23.21±3.43)min, (5.62±3.21)ml, 3.35±1.62, 5.08±1.80, (9.1±1.8)d, 91.2% and 3.5% in the conventional group respectively. Differences are statistically significant ( <0.05) in these parameters. Conclusion Compared with the conventional procedure, the disposable circumcision suture divice has the advantages of shorter operation time, minimally invasive, mild pain, fewer complications and higher satisfaction.