• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

输精管切除术的手术刀切口与无手术刀切口对比

Scalpel versus no-scalpel incision for vasectomy.

作者信息

Cook L A, Pun A, van Vliet H, Gallo M F, Lopez L M

机构信息

Christchurch School of Medicine, Public Health and General Practice, Christchurch, New Zealand.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18(2):CD004112. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004112.pub3.

DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004112.pub3
PMID:17443540
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Currently, the two most common surgical techniques for approaching the vas during vasectomy are the incisional method and the no-scalpel technique. Whereas the conventional incisional technique involves the use of a scalpel to make one or two incisions, the no-scalpel technique uses a sharp-pointed, forceps-like instrument to puncture the skin. The no-scalpel technique aims to reduce adverse events, especially bleeding, bruising, hematoma, infection and pain and to shorten the operating time.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to compare the effectiveness, safety, and acceptability of the incisional versus no-scalpel approach to the vas.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the computerized databases of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE and LILACS in May 2006. In addition, we searched the reference lists of relevant articles and book chapters.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials were included in this review. No language restrictions were placed on the reporting of the trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We assessed all titles and abstracts located in the literature searches and two authors independently extracted data from the articles identified for inclusion. Outcome measures included safety, acceptability, operating time, contraceptive efficacy, and discontinuation.

MAIN RESULTS

Two randomized controlled trials evaluated the no-scalpel technique and differed in their findings. The larger trial demonstrated less perioperative bleeding (Odds ratio (OR) 0.49; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.27 to 0.89) and pain during surgery (OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93), scrotal pain (OR 0.63; 95% 0.50 to 0.80), and incisional infection (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.78) during follow up than the standard incisional group. Both studies found less hematoma with the no-scalpel technique (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.36). Operations using the no-scalpel approach were faster and had a quicker resumption of sexual activity. The smaller study did not find these differences; however, the study could have failed to detect differences due to a small sample size as well as a high loss to follow up. Neither trial found differences in vasectomy effectiveness between the two approaches to the vas.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The no-scalpel approach to the vas resulted in less bleeding, hematoma, infection, and pain as well as a shorter operation time than the traditional incision technique. No difference in effectiveness was found between the two approaches.

摘要

背景

目前,输精管结扎术中两种最常用的输精管手术方法是切开法和无刀技术。传统的切开技术需要用手术刀做一到两个切口,而无刀技术则使用一种类似镊子的尖锐器械穿刺皮肤。无刀技术旨在减少不良事件,尤其是出血、瘀伤、血肿、感染和疼痛,并缩短手术时间。

目的

本综述的目的是比较切开法与无刀技术在输精管手术中的有效性、安全性和可接受性。

检索策略

我们于2006年5月检索了CENTRAL、MEDLINE、EMBASE、POPLINE和LILACS的计算机数据库。此外,我们还检索了相关文章和书籍章节的参考文献列表。

选择标准

本综述纳入了随机对照试验和对照临床试验。试验报告没有语言限制。

数据收集与分析

我们评估了文献检索中找到的所有标题和摘要,两位作者独立从确定纳入的文章中提取数据。结局指标包括安全性、可接受性、手术时间、避孕效果和终止率。

主要结果

两项随机对照试验评估了无刀技术,结果有所不同。规模较大的试验表明,与标准切开组相比,无刀技术组围手术期出血较少(优势比(OR)0.49;95%置信区间(CI)0.27至0.89)、手术期间疼痛较轻(OR 0.75;95%CI 0.61至0.93)、随访期间阴囊疼痛较轻(OR 0.63;95%CI 0.50至0.80)以及切口感染较少(OR 0.21;95%CI 0.06至0.78)。两项研究均发现无刀技术导致的血肿较少(OR 0.23;95%CI 0.15至0.36)。采用无刀技术的手术速度更快,恢复性活动的时间也更快。规模较小的研究未发现这些差异;然而,由于样本量小以及随访失访率高,该研究可能未能检测到差异。两项试验均未发现两种输精管手术方法在输精管结扎有效性方面存在差异。

作者结论

与传统切开技术相比,无刀输精管手术方法导致的出血、血肿、感染和疼痛更少,手术时间更短。两种方法在有效性方面未发现差异。

相似文献

1
Scalpel versus no-scalpel incision for vasectomy.输精管切除术的手术刀切口与无手术刀切口对比
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18(2):CD004112. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004112.pub3.
2
Scalpel versus no-scalpel incision for vasectomy.输精管结扎术的手术刀切口与无手术刀切口对比
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006 Oct 18(4):CD004112. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004112.pub2.
3
Scalpel versus no-scalpel incision for vasectomy.输精管结扎术的手术刀切口与无手术刀切口对比
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Mar 30;2014(3):CD004112. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004112.pub4.
4
Vasectomy occlusion techniques for male sterilization.用于男性绝育的输精管结扎闭塞技术。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Apr 18(2):CD003991. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003991.pub3.
5
Vasectomy occlusion techniques for male sterilization.用于男性绝育的输精管结扎闭塞技术。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004(3):CD003991. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003991.pub2.
6
Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.转移性皮肤黑色素瘤的全身治疗
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Feb 6;2(2):CD011123. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011123.pub2.
7
Sertindole for schizophrenia.用于治疗精神分裂症的舍吲哚。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jul 20;2005(3):CD001715. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001715.pub2.
8
Intravenous versus inhalational maintenance of anaesthesia for postoperative cognitive outcomes in elderly people undergoing non-cardiac surgery.非心脏手术老年患者术后认知结局:静脉麻醉维持与吸入麻醉维持的比较
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 21;8(8):CD012317. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012317.pub2.
9
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents for treating cystoid macular edema following cataract surgery.非甾体类抗炎药治疗白内障术后囊样黄斑水肿。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Dec 15;12(12):CD004239. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004239.pub4.
10
Interventions for infantile haemangiomas of the skin.皮肤婴儿血管瘤的干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Apr 18;4(4):CD006545. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006545.pub3.

引用本文的文献

1
Barriers to acceptance of vasectomy among married males in India: A systematic review.印度已婚男性接受输精管切除术的障碍:一项系统综述。
J Family Med Prim Care. 2025 May;14(5):1617-1626. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_1785_24. Epub 2025 May 31.
2
UPDATE - 2022 Canadian Urological Association best practice report: Vasectomy.更新 - 2022年加拿大泌尿外科协会最佳实践报告:输精管切除术
Can Urol Assoc J. 2022 May;16(5):E231-E236. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.7860.
3
Review of Vasectomy Complications and Safety Concerns.输精管切除术并发症及安全问题综述
World J Mens Health. 2021 Jul;39(3):406-418. doi: 10.5534/wjmh.200073. Epub 2020 Jul 30.
4
Comparative study between the excision-ligation and autoligation of vas deferens technique for teaser rams preparation.用于预备试情公羊的输精管切除结扎术与自动结扎术的对比研究。
Vet World. 2019 Jun;12(6):901-908. doi: 10.14202/vetworld.2019.901-908. Epub 2019 Jun 27.
5
CUA guideline: Vasectomy.加拿大泌尿外科学会指南:输精管切除术
Can Urol Assoc J. 2016 Aug;10(7-8):E274-E278. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.4017. Epub 2016 Aug 16.
6
No Scalpel Vasectomy (NSV) with Ligation and Excision: A Single Centre Experience.无手术刀输精管结扎切除术(NSV):单中心经验
Indian J Surg. 2015 Dec;77(Suppl 3):1038-40. doi: 10.1007/s12262-014-1119-1. Epub 2014 Jun 8.
7
No-scalpel vasectomy by electrocauterization in free range rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta).自由放养恒河猴(猕猴)经电灼法的无刀输精管切除术
Open Vet J. 2012;2(1):6-9. Epub 2012 Feb 5.
8
Vasectomy occlusion techniques for male sterilization.用于男性绝育的输精管结扎闭塞技术。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Mar 30;2014(3):CD003991. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003991.pub4.
9
Instructional video on vasectomy: evidence-based procedure should be demonstrated.输精管切除术教学视频:应展示基于证据的手术过程。
Can Fam Physician. 2014 Jan;60(1):37-9.
10
Scrotal haematoma following vasectomy: an unusual surgical emergency.输精管切除术后阴囊血肿:一种罕见的外科急症。
BMJ Case Rep. 2014 Jan 6;2014:bcr2013202421. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2013-202421.