Wang Kui, Tan Wei, Xiang Kui, Yang Chao
Department of Urology and Andrology, The Central Hospital of Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture, Enshi, Hubei, China.
Department of Urology and Andrology, The Central Hospital of Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture, Enshi, Hubei, China.
Surgery. 2025 Feb;178:108970. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2024.108970. Epub 2024 Dec 11.
This prospective nonrandomized controlled study aimed to compare the surgical outcomes, postoperative complications, and patient experiences between a modified circumcision technique using a disposable circumcision suture device and the standard circumcision method using a disposable circumcision suture device in Chinese patients with excess foreskin or phimosis at our department of urology and andrology.
A total of 456 patients underwent circumcision at our center from May 2021 to September 2022, with 228 patients in the modified disposable circumcision suture device group (mean age: 29.8 years; range: 16.8-44.9 years) and 228 patients in the disposable circumcision suture device group (mean age: 29.6 years; range: 16.4-45.1 years). Key surgical outcomes, including surgical time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative edema duration, time for complete shedding of titanium pins, and incision healing time, were recorded and analyzed. Additionally, postoperative complications (such as injury to the penile frenulum, frenulum misalignment, glans ischemia, severe bleeding, and infection) as well as patient experiences (including intraoperative and postoperative pain scores and satisfaction with the cosmetic appearance of the penis) were evaluated.
All surgeries were successfully completed. The surgical duration was significantly longer in the modified disposable circumcision suture device group (5.7 ± 0.5 minutes) compared to the disposable circumcision suture device group (4.2 ± 0.6 minutes) (P < .05), indicating that the modified procedure took longer to perform. However, no significant differences were found between the 2 groups regarding intraoperative blood loss (3.2 ± 0.2 mL vs 3.2 ± 0.1 mL; P > .05), postoperative edema duration (8.2 ± 2.0 days vs 8.9 ± 1.9 days; P > .05), time for complete shedding of titanium pins (13.7 ± 1.3 days vs 13.8 ± 1.3 days; P > .05), and healing time (21.8 ± 1.7 days vs 21.9 ± 1.8 days; P > .05). The incidence of complications, including injury to the penile frenulum (0% vs 0%), glans ischemia (0% vs 0%), severe bleeding (1.3% vs 1.8%), and infection (2.6% vs 3.1%), was comparable between the 2 groups (P > .05 for all comparisons). Notably, the incidence of frenulum misalignment was significantly lower in the modified disposable circumcision suture device group (2.2% vs 16.7% in the disposable circumcision suture device group; P < .05). Moreover, patient satisfaction with the cosmetic appearance of the penis was higher in the modified disposable circumcision suture device group compared with the disposable circumcision suture device group (96.5% vs 86.8%; P < .05). The pain scores recorded during and after the procedures showed no significant intergroup differences (intraoperative: 1.7 ± 1.0 vs 1.7 ± 0.9; postoperative: 1.3 ± 1.0 vs 1.3 ± 1.0; P > .05 for all comparisons).
The modified circumcision technique using a DCSD is associated with a longer operative time; however, it effectively minimizes the risk of preputial frenulum misalignment and enhances postoperative cosmetic satisfaction.
本前瞻性非随机对照研究旨在比较在我院泌尿外科和男科就诊的包皮过长或包茎中国患者中,使用一次性包皮环切缝合器的改良包皮环切技术与使用一次性包皮环切缝合器的标准包皮环切方法的手术效果、术后并发症及患者体验。
2021年5月至2022年9月,共有456例患者在我院中心接受包皮环切术,其中改良一次性包皮环切缝合器组228例(平均年龄:29.8岁;范围:16.8 - 44.9岁),一次性包皮环切缝合器组228例(平均年龄:29.6岁;范围:16.4 - 45.1岁)。记录并分析关键手术指标,包括手术时间、术中出血量、术后水肿持续时间、钛钉完全脱落时间及切口愈合时间。此外,评估术后并发症(如阴茎系带损伤、系带错位、龟头缺血、严重出血及感染)以及患者体验(包括术中及术后疼痛评分和对阴茎外观的满意度)。
所有手术均成功完成。改良一次性包皮环切缝合器组的手术时间(5.7 ± 0.5分钟)显著长于一次性包皮环切缝合器组(4.2 ± 0.6分钟)(P < 0.05),表明改良手术操作时间更长。然而,两组在术中出血量(3.2 ± 0.2 mL vs 3.2 ± 0.1 mL;P > 0.05)、术后水肿持续时间(8.2 ± 2.0天vs 8.9 ± 1.9天;P > 0.05)、钛钉完全脱落时间(13.7 ± 1.3天vs 13.8 ± 1.3天;P > 0.05)及愈合时间(21.8 ± 1.7天vs 21.9 ± 1.8天;P > 0.05)方面无显著差异。两组并发症发生率,包括阴茎系带损伤(0% vs 0%)、龟头缺血(0% vs 0%)、严重出血(1.3% vs 1.8%)及感染(2.6% vs 3.1%)相当(所有比较P > 0.05)。值得注意的是,改良一次性包皮环切缝合器组的系带错位发生率显著低于一次性包皮环切缝合器组(2.2% vs 16.7%;P < 0.05)。此外,改良一次性包皮环切缝合器组患者对阴茎外观的满意度高于一次性包皮环切缝合器组(96.5% vs 86.8%;P < 0.05)。手术期间及术后记录的疼痛评分显示组间无显著差异(术中:1.7 ± 1.0 vs 1.7 ± 0.9;术后:1.3 ± 1.0 vs 1.3 ± 1.0;所有比较P > 0.05)。
使用一次性包皮环切缝合器的改良包皮环切技术手术时间较长;然而,它能有效降低包皮系带错位风险并提高术后外观满意度。