ABSTRACT
Objective@#To compare the clinical effect of a novel disposable circumcision device Ring with that of conventional circumcision in the treatment of redundant prepuce and phimosis.@*METHODS@#Totally, 750 patients with redundant prepuce or phimosis underwent Ring circumcision (group A, n = 450) or conventional circumcision (group B, n = 300). We recorded the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) intraoperative pain scores, postoperative complications, wound healing time, and patients' satisfaction with postoperative penile appearance, followed by comparison of the collected data between the two groups of patients.@*RESULTS@#All the operations were successfully completed. Group A, as compared with B, showed significantly shorter operation time (［3.78 ± 0.42］ vs ［26.24 ± 3.99］ min, P 0.05) or the postoperative incidence rate of edema (0.89% ［4/450］ vs 2.33% ［7/300］, P >0.05). There were no significant postoperative infections or delayed incision healing except for 1 case of wound dehiscence in each group.@*CONCLUSIONS@#Ring circumcision, with its advantages of shorter operation time, less blood loss and pain, higher safety, and better postoperative penile appearance, is easily accepted by the patients and deserves wide clinical application.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Blood Loss, Surgical , Circumcision, Male , Disposable Equipment , Incidence , Operative Time , Pain Measurement , Patient Satisfaction , Penis , Congenital Abnormalities , General Surgery , Phimosis , General Surgery , Postoperative Complications , Postoperative Hemorrhage , Postoperative Period , Wound HealingABSTRACT
Objective@#To investigate the clinical effect of a novel disposable ring versus that of the suture device in circumcision for redundant prepuce and phimosis.@*METHODS@#We randomly assigned 470 male patients with redundant prepuce or phimosis to receive circumcision with a novel disposable ring (the DR group, n = 235) or the suture device (the SD group, n = 235) and compared the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, pain scores, wound healing time, and postoperative complications and penile appearance between the two groups of patients.@*RESULTS@#All the operations were completed smoothly. Compared with the SD group, the DR group showed significantly shorter operation time (［7.49 ± 1.84］ vs ［3.83 ± 0.42］ min, P 0.05) or while the staples scraping the underpants or at the ring removal (3.49 ± 1.22 vs 3.36 ± 1.41, P >0.05). No obvious postoperative infection or delayed healing was observed except for 3 cases of wound dehiscence (1 in the DR and 2 in the SD group) and 8 cases of delayed removal of the staples in the SD group.@*CONCLUSIONS@#The novel disposable ring, with its advantages of short operation time, less bleeding and pain, good penile appearance, high safety, and simple operation, is obviously superior to the suture device in circumcision and deserves to be applied and popularized clinically. .