局部麻醉下阴茎部分切除术的可行性:病例对照研究

IF 0.5 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY African Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2024-03-12 DOI:10.1186/s12301-024-00416-3
Madhur Anand, Apul Goel, Bhupendra Pal Singh, Swati Aggarwal, Manoj Kumar, Vivek Kumar Singh, Vishwajeet Singh
{"title":"局部麻醉下阴茎部分切除术的可行性:病例对照研究","authors":"Madhur Anand, Apul Goel, Bhupendra Pal Singh, Swati Aggarwal, Manoj Kumar, Vivek Kumar Singh, Vishwajeet Singh","doi":"10.1186/s12301-024-00416-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To assess the feasibility of partial penectomy under local anesthesia and penile nerve blocks. A total of 45 patients underwent partial penectomy under local anesthesia over the last 15 years at our institute. These patients were included in group A. We took 45 age-matched controls for comparison in group B. All patients underwent partial penectomy with the standard technique. The control group underwent partial penectomy under general or spinal anesthesia, and the intervention group underwent partial penectomy under local anesthesia. Patients’ tolerance to anesthesia and surgery was compared, and postoperative pain and other complications were assessed. Mean age was 53.5 years in group A (case) and 52.8 years in group B (controls). Out of 45 patients in group A, 9 were ASA I, 16 were ASA II, 8 were ASA III, and 12 were ASA IV patients. Out of control patients, 35 underwent surgery under spinal and 10 underwent surgery under general anesthesia. All patients tolerated the anesthesia and surgery well. The duration of anesthesia and surgery was shorter in group A (p < 0.05). Postoperative pain scores between the two groups were comparable after 6 h. Postoperative recovery was comparable in both groups, and hospital stays were shorter in local anesthesia/nerve block group but were statistically insignificant. There was no positive margin in any group. Partial penectomy under local anesthesia is a satisfactory alternative in selected cases or with limited availability of anesthesia services.","PeriodicalId":7432,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Urology","volume":"110 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Feasibility of partial penectomy under local anesthesia: a case–control study\",\"authors\":\"Madhur Anand, Apul Goel, Bhupendra Pal Singh, Swati Aggarwal, Manoj Kumar, Vivek Kumar Singh, Vishwajeet Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12301-024-00416-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To assess the feasibility of partial penectomy under local anesthesia and penile nerve blocks. A total of 45 patients underwent partial penectomy under local anesthesia over the last 15 years at our institute. These patients were included in group A. We took 45 age-matched controls for comparison in group B. All patients underwent partial penectomy with the standard technique. The control group underwent partial penectomy under general or spinal anesthesia, and the intervention group underwent partial penectomy under local anesthesia. Patients’ tolerance to anesthesia and surgery was compared, and postoperative pain and other complications were assessed. Mean age was 53.5 years in group A (case) and 52.8 years in group B (controls). Out of 45 patients in group A, 9 were ASA I, 16 were ASA II, 8 were ASA III, and 12 were ASA IV patients. Out of control patients, 35 underwent surgery under spinal and 10 underwent surgery under general anesthesia. All patients tolerated the anesthesia and surgery well. The duration of anesthesia and surgery was shorter in group A (p < 0.05). Postoperative pain scores between the two groups were comparable after 6 h. Postoperative recovery was comparable in both groups, and hospital stays were shorter in local anesthesia/nerve block group but were statistically insignificant. There was no positive margin in any group. Partial penectomy under local anesthesia is a satisfactory alternative in selected cases or with limited availability of anesthesia services.\",\"PeriodicalId\":7432,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":\"110 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12301-024-00416-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12301-024-00416-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

评估在局部麻醉和阴茎神经阻滞下进行阴茎部分切除术的可行性。在过去的 15 年中,共有 45 名患者在我院接受了局部麻醉下的阴茎部分切除术。所有患者均采用标准技术进行了阴茎部分切除术。对照组在全身或脊髓麻醉下进行阴茎部分切除术,干预组在局部麻醉下进行阴茎部分切除术。比较了患者对麻醉和手术的耐受性,并对术后疼痛和其他并发症进行了评估。A组(病例)的平均年龄为53.5岁,B组(对照组)的平均年龄为52.8岁。A 组 45 名患者中,9 人为 ASA I 级,16 人为 ASA II 级,8 人为 ASA III 级,12 人为 ASA IV 级。在对照组患者中,35 人接受了脊髓麻醉手术,10 人接受了全身麻醉手术。所有患者都能很好地耐受麻醉和手术。A 组的麻醉和手术时间较短(P < 0.05)。两组术后恢复情况相当,局麻/神经阻滞组住院时间较短,但无统计学意义。各组均无阳性边缘。在局部麻醉下进行阴茎部分切除术是一种令人满意的替代方法,适用于部分病例或麻醉服务有限的病例。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Feasibility of partial penectomy under local anesthesia: a case–control study
To assess the feasibility of partial penectomy under local anesthesia and penile nerve blocks. A total of 45 patients underwent partial penectomy under local anesthesia over the last 15 years at our institute. These patients were included in group A. We took 45 age-matched controls for comparison in group B. All patients underwent partial penectomy with the standard technique. The control group underwent partial penectomy under general or spinal anesthesia, and the intervention group underwent partial penectomy under local anesthesia. Patients’ tolerance to anesthesia and surgery was compared, and postoperative pain and other complications were assessed. Mean age was 53.5 years in group A (case) and 52.8 years in group B (controls). Out of 45 patients in group A, 9 were ASA I, 16 were ASA II, 8 were ASA III, and 12 were ASA IV patients. Out of control patients, 35 underwent surgery under spinal and 10 underwent surgery under general anesthesia. All patients tolerated the anesthesia and surgery well. The duration of anesthesia and surgery was shorter in group A (p < 0.05). Postoperative pain scores between the two groups were comparable after 6 h. Postoperative recovery was comparable in both groups, and hospital stays were shorter in local anesthesia/nerve block group but were statistically insignificant. There was no positive margin in any group. Partial penectomy under local anesthesia is a satisfactory alternative in selected cases or with limited availability of anesthesia services.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
African Journal of Urology
African Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊最新文献
Digital rectal exam in prostate cancer screening: a critical review of the ERSPC Rotterdam study Outcome of perioperative immune enhancing nutrition in patients undergoing radical cystectomy A prospective study of the association between varicoceles and semen quality in men with infertility Comparison of combination therapy with tamsulosin and dutasteride or finasteride in patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia: a randomized clinical trial Can the parameters of penile duplex assessment predict the success of urethroplasty?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1