ABSTRACT
Prepuce diseases are very common conditions in urology and andrology, and quite a few cases need to be treated by surgery. Preputial edema is a common complication after prepuce surgery, with a higher incidence rate in children than in adults. Although preputial edema is just moderate symptom and does not affect urination, it worries or even distresses the patient both physically and psychologically. In recent years, rapid achievements have been made in prepuce surgery, as in prepuce circumcision, preputial neoplasm excision, and penile degloving repair, which can now be accomplished with shorter time and higher efficiency. Despite constant improvement in the methods and techniques for prepuce surgery, postoperative edema remains difficult to be totally prevented. Pathogenic factors for postoperative preputial edema vary from disturbance of blood circulation to inflammatory factor-induced change in capillary permeability, lymphatic circulation disorders, and neurogenic edema. Elimination of the pathogenic factors and precautionary measures after surgery count significantly to the prevention and management of postoperative preputial edema. This review focuses on the pathogenesis, prevention and treatment of edema after prepuce surgery.
ABSTRACT
Objective To introduce the operative mode of circumcision of the root skin of penis for the treatment of redundant prepuce and its efficacy. Methods The operative indications included redundant prepuce and imperfect phimosis.With the will of patients,circumcision of the root skin of penis was performed on 256 cases of redundant prepuce and imperfect phimosis (group A).One section of the root skin of penis was resected,and the wound was sewed up.The skin of penis was moved from far to nearby and the prepuce was shortened finally.Compared with group A,group B (another 265 cases with the same indications) were treated with the traditional circumcision of prepuce.The amount of bleeding during operation and postoperative complications (bleeding, hematoma, dropsy, pain, infection of wound) were compared between the 2 groups. Results Intraoperative hemorrhagic amount was (3?1)ml in group A and (10?2)ml in group B( t=-50.36,P