Abstract：Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and complication of Shang Ring circumcision by the no-flip method and the external method. Methods: From Jan. 2016 to Oct. 2016, a total of 158 outpatients with redundant prepuce or phimosis were selected and randomly divided into the no-flip group (n=78) and external group (n=80), and the patients with concealed penis, obvious adhesion, frenulum fusion and uncontrolled diabetes were excluded. The operation duration, pain score within 24 h, wound healing time, postoperative edema, incision infection, wound dehiscence and pain score when removing loop were compared. Results: The pain score within 24 h in the external group was significantly lower than in the no-flip group (P<0.05), while the score when removing loop in the external group was higher than that in the no-flip group (P<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences in the operation duration, wound healing time and complications between the two groups. Conclusions: Both the two surgical methods have the advantages of satisfactory clinical efficacy, short operation duration and low complication rate. The postoperative pain is slight in the external method,but there exists an obvious pain when removing loop. Conversely, the opposite occurs when using the no-flip method.
孙吉磊, 吴元翼, 邵志强, 逯丽芳, 王素静, 杨勇. “内置法”和“外置法”商环包皮环切术对比研究[J]. 微创泌尿外科杂志, 2018, 7(s1): 37-.
Sun Jilei, Wu Yuanyi, Shao Zhiqiang, Lu Lifang, Wang Sujing, Yang Yong. Comparision of two methods of Shang Ring circumcision: no-flip method and external method. JOURNAL OF MINIMALLY INVASIVE UROLOGY, 2018, 7(s1): 37-.
[1] 吕年青,谷翊群,夏术阶,等.推广男性包皮环切术对降低生殖道感染促进生殖健康的意义.中国计划生育学杂志,2012,20(5):298-302.
[2] Barone MA, Li PS, Awori QD, et al. Clinical trials using the Shang Ring device for male circumcision in Africa: a review. Transl Androl Urol, 2014,3(1):113-124.
[3] Peng YF, Cheng Y, Wang GY, et al. Clinical application of a new device for minimally invasive circumcision. Asian J Androl, 2008,10(3):447-454.
[4] 王小林,陈静辉,张常银,等.商环包皮环切术与常规包皮环切术疗效比较.浙江中西医结合杂志,2013,21(5):407-408.
[5] 王国栋,王保起.一次性包皮环切吻合器与传统包皮环切术的临床疗效比较.山西医药杂志,2015,17(2):141-143.
[6] 程跃,严泽军,苏新军.中国商环包皮环切术与传统包皮环切术的临床对比研究.中华泌尿外科杂志,2011,32(5):333-335.
[7] 曾锋,曾令浩.商环包皮环切术和传统包皮环切术的疗效和手术并发症.临床与病理杂志,2016,36(4):370-374.
[8] Cao D, Liu L, Hu Y, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of circumcision with Shang Ring vs conventional circumcision. Urology, 2015,85(4):799-804.
[9] Sokal DC, Li PS, Zulu R, et al. Randomized controlled trial of the Shang Ring versus conventional surgical techniques for adult male circumcision: safety and acceptability. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr, 2014,65(4):447-455.
[10] 韦国强,张迅,梁季鸿,等.中国商环在成年男性包皮环切术中的应用效果观察.广西医学,2014,36(4):439-441.
[11] 张迅,梁季鸿,韦国强,等.对比内环外置法与内环内置法中国商环包皮环切术的临床效果.广西医学,2014,36(12):1712-1714.
[12] 曲巍,刘靓,刘锋."商环"内置包皮环切术治疗儿童包茎的操作标准化及并发症控制.中华男科学杂志,2016,22(4):369-372.
