Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

[Clinical effects of the circumcision stapler, foreskin cerclage, and traditional circumcision: A comparative study].

Authors: Hui-dong, Miao; Jia-wei, Lu; Fu-nian, Lu; Feng, Shen; Xiao-lin, Yuan; Hai-yong, Liu;

[Clinical effects of the circumcision stapler, foreskin cerclage, and traditional circumcision: A comparative study].

Abstract

To compare the clinical effects of the circumcision stapler, circumcision cerclage, and traditional circumcision in the treatment of phimosis and redundant prepuce.Using the circumcision stapler (group A), foreskin cerclage (group B), and traditional circumcision (group C), we treated 276 patients with phimosis or redundant prepuce. We made comparisons among the three groups in the operation time, intraoperative blood loss, intraoperative and 24-hour postoperative pain scores, and incidence of postoperative complications. Results: The operation time, intraoperative blood loss, and intraoperative pain score were (6.52 ± 2.45) min, (1.93 ± 0.82) ml, and 1.37 ± 0.68 in group A and (7.24 ± 1.86) min, (1.51 ± 0.72) ml, and 1.20 ± 0.79 in group B, all significantly lower than (28. 36 ± 4.22) min, (9.52 ± 3.29) ml, and 3.06 ± 0.75 in group C (P 0.05).The circumcision stapler, with its advantages of simple operation, minimal invasiveness, fewer complications, and better cosmetic result, deserves a wider clinical application.

Keywords

Male, Postoperative Pain, Incidence, Foreskin, Blood Loss, Surgical, Phimosis, Postoperative Complications, Circumcision, Male, Humans, Postoperative Period, Pain Measurement, Penis

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!