用于成人包皮环切术的两种一次性包皮环切缝合器的有效性和安全性:一项前瞻性多中心比较研究。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q2 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY International Journal of Impotence Research Pub Date : 2024-06-17 DOI:10.1038/s41443-024-00933-3
Alessia Celeste Bocchino, Esaú Fernández-Pascual, Carlos Toribio-Vázquez, Celeste Manfredi, Guillermo Urdaneta, Carlos Balmori, Enrique Lledó, Claudio Martínez-Ballesteros, Andrea Cocci, Nicola Mondaini, Juan Ignacio Martínez-Salamanca
{"title":"用于成人包皮环切术的两种一次性包皮环切缝合器的有效性和安全性:一项前瞻性多中心比较研究。","authors":"Alessia Celeste Bocchino, Esaú Fernández-Pascual, Carlos Toribio-Vázquez, Celeste Manfredi, Guillermo Urdaneta, Carlos Balmori, Enrique Lledó, Claudio Martínez-Ballesteros, Andrea Cocci, Nicola Mondaini, Juan Ignacio Martínez-Salamanca","doi":"10.1038/s41443-024-00933-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare efficacy and safety of two different Disposable circumcision suture devices (DCSDs). A prospective comparative non-randomized multicenter study was performed between November 2019 and February 2023. Patients underwent circumcision using a DCSD (CircCurer<sup>TM</sup> or the ZSR<sup>®</sup> device) according to the surgeon preference and device availability. A total of 378 patients were circumcised; 184 using CircCurer<sup>TM</sup> and 194 patients using ZSR<sup>®</sup>. No differences in baseline characteristics were observed. CircCurer and ZSR Groups showed similar rates of operative time (7.7 ±2.1 vs 7.3 ±2.0 min), surgical site infection (1.1% Vs 1.5%), edema (13% Vs 8.2%), hematomas (2.7% Vs 1.1%), and postoperative pain (2.5 Vs 2.0 points). ZSR Group had a significantly higher rate of clip fallout (62.9% Vs 38%, p < 0.001). At 2 months, patients of both groups reported a median satisfaction of 9 (8-9) points. Main limitation consist in non-randomized study. DCSDs seem to be effective and safe, with short operative times, uncommon and mild complications, and high patient satisfaction. ZSR<sup>®</sup> device has a higher rate of spontaneous staple dropout.</p>","PeriodicalId":14068,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Impotence Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy and safety of two disposable circumcision suture devices for circumcision in adults: a prospective comparative multicenter study.\",\"authors\":\"Alessia Celeste Bocchino, Esaú Fernández-Pascual, Carlos Toribio-Vázquez, Celeste Manfredi, Guillermo Urdaneta, Carlos Balmori, Enrique Lledó, Claudio Martínez-Ballesteros, Andrea Cocci, Nicola Mondaini, Juan Ignacio Martínez-Salamanca\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41443-024-00933-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare efficacy and safety of two different Disposable circumcision suture devices (DCSDs). A prospective comparative non-randomized multicenter study was performed between November 2019 and February 2023. Patients underwent circumcision using a DCSD (CircCurer<sup>TM</sup> or the ZSR<sup>®</sup> device) according to the surgeon preference and device availability. A total of 378 patients were circumcised; 184 using CircCurer<sup>TM</sup> and 194 patients using ZSR<sup>®</sup>. No differences in baseline characteristics were observed. CircCurer and ZSR Groups showed similar rates of operative time (7.7 ±2.1 vs 7.3 ±2.0 min), surgical site infection (1.1% Vs 1.5%), edema (13% Vs 8.2%), hematomas (2.7% Vs 1.1%), and postoperative pain (2.5 Vs 2.0 points). ZSR Group had a significantly higher rate of clip fallout (62.9% Vs 38%, p < 0.001). At 2 months, patients of both groups reported a median satisfaction of 9 (8-9) points. Main limitation consist in non-randomized study. DCSDs seem to be effective and safe, with short operative times, uncommon and mild complications, and high patient satisfaction. ZSR<sup>®</sup> device has a higher rate of spontaneous staple dropout.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14068,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Impotence Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Impotence Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-024-00933-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Impotence Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-024-00933-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在评估和比较两种不同的一次性包皮环切缝合器(DCSD)的有效性和安全性。在 2019 年 11 月至 2023 年 2 月期间进行了一项前瞻性非随机多中心比较研究。患者根据外科医生的偏好和设备的可用性,使用 DCSD(CircCurerTM 或 ZSR® 设备)进行包皮环切术。共有 378 名患者接受了包皮环切术;其中 184 名患者使用 CircCurerTM,194 名患者使用 ZSR®。基线特征无差异。CircCurer 组和 ZSR 组的手术时间(7.7 ±2.1 分钟对 7.3 ±2.0 分钟)、手术部位感染(1.1% 对 1.5%)、水肿(13% 对 8.2%)、血肿(2.7% 对 1.1%)和术后疼痛(2.5 分对 2.0 分)发生率相似。ZSR 组的缝合线脱落率明显更高(62.9% 对 38%,P ® 设备的缝合线自发脱落率更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Efficacy and safety of two disposable circumcision suture devices for circumcision in adults: a prospective comparative multicenter study.

The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare efficacy and safety of two different Disposable circumcision suture devices (DCSDs). A prospective comparative non-randomized multicenter study was performed between November 2019 and February 2023. Patients underwent circumcision using a DCSD (CircCurerTM or the ZSR® device) according to the surgeon preference and device availability. A total of 378 patients were circumcised; 184 using CircCurerTM and 194 patients using ZSR®. No differences in baseline characteristics were observed. CircCurer and ZSR Groups showed similar rates of operative time (7.7 ±2.1 vs 7.3 ±2.0 min), surgical site infection (1.1% Vs 1.5%), edema (13% Vs 8.2%), hematomas (2.7% Vs 1.1%), and postoperative pain (2.5 Vs 2.0 points). ZSR Group had a significantly higher rate of clip fallout (62.9% Vs 38%, p < 0.001). At 2 months, patients of both groups reported a median satisfaction of 9 (8-9) points. Main limitation consist in non-randomized study. DCSDs seem to be effective and safe, with short operative times, uncommon and mild complications, and high patient satisfaction. ZSR® device has a higher rate of spontaneous staple dropout.

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
International Journal of Impotence Research
International Journal of Impotence Research 医学-泌尿学与肾脏学
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
19.20%
发文量
140
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Impotence Research: The Journal of Sexual Medicine addresses sexual medicine for both genders as an interdisciplinary field. This includes basic science researchers, urologists, endocrinologists, cardiologists, family practitioners, gynecologists, internists, neurologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, radiologists and other health care clinicians.
期刊最新文献
Comment on article on complications of total vs partial penectomy Shorter prostatic urethral length in preoperative Magnetic Resonance Imaging is associated with higher risk of climacturia following robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy Response to comment on: bioengineered dermal matrix (Integra®) reduces donor site morbidity in total phallic construction with radial artery forearm free-flap. Association between the atherogenic index of plasma and erectile dysfunction in US men: a population-based cross-sectional study. Novel predictive factor for erectile dysfunction: systemic immune inflammation index.
×
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