三种技术在新生儿包皮环切术中的比较:动脉钳、切骨钳和Gomco钳法。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Victor Ifeanyichukwu Modekwe, Chukwubunna Ezeifedikwa, Evan Therese Nwosu, Ezekiel Uchechukwu Nwankwo, Okechukwu Hyginus Ekwunife, Jideofor Okechukwu Ugwu, Charles Chidiebele Maduba, Ugochukwu Uzodimma Nnadozie, Ugochukwu Stanley Ezidiegwu, Chuka Abunike Ugwunne
{"title":"三种技术在新生儿包皮环切术中的比较:动脉钳、切骨钳和Gomco钳法。","authors":"Victor Ifeanyichukwu Modekwe, Chukwubunna Ezeifedikwa, Evan Therese Nwosu, Ezekiel Uchechukwu Nwankwo, Okechukwu Hyginus Ekwunife, Jideofor Okechukwu Ugwu, Charles Chidiebele Maduba, Ugochukwu Uzodimma Nnadozie, Ugochukwu Stanley Ezidiegwu, Chuka Abunike Ugwunne","doi":"10.4314/ejhs.v35i1.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Neonatal circumcision is the oldest and most common surgical procedure The safety, ease, and outcomes of various methods of surgical procedures for neonatal circumcision have become increasingly the focus in the reviews of this procedure. This study aimed to identify the easy, safe and acceptable method for neonatal circumcision.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective study involved 357 male neonates, divided into three groups based on the methods used for neonatal circumcision: artery-forceps, bone-cutter, and Gomco methods. Clamps were uniformly applied for 7 minutes (420 seconds). The study assessed procedure time, primary and reactionary bleeding, and outcomes using the adapted Paediatric Penile Perception (PPP) score. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 23, with a p-value set at <0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Each group consisted of 119 neonates. The bone-cutter method was the fastest (590.2 ± 60.14 seconds), while the Gomco method was the slowest (624.2 ± 55.16 seconds, p<0.001). Primary bleeding occurred most frequently with the artery-forceps method (37 out of 119), and least with the bone-cutter (p<0.001). Only the artery-forceps group had reactionary bleeding (p=0.018). The bone-cutter and Gomco methods had the highest PPP mean scores: 11.91 ± 0.390 and 11.87 ± 0.566, respectively (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The bone-cutter method is the fastest, safest, and produces the best cosmetic outcomes of the three methods studied.</p>","PeriodicalId":12003,"journal":{"name":"Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences","volume":"35 1","pages":"28-34"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11837788/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Three Techniques in Neonatal Circumcision: Artery Forceps, Bone-cutter, and Gomco Clamp Methods.\",\"authors\":\"Victor Ifeanyichukwu Modekwe, Chukwubunna Ezeifedikwa, Evan Therese Nwosu, Ezekiel Uchechukwu Nwankwo, Okechukwu Hyginus Ekwunife, Jideofor Okechukwu Ugwu, Charles Chidiebele Maduba, Ugochukwu Uzodimma Nnadozie, Ugochukwu Stanley Ezidiegwu, Chuka Abunike Ugwunne\",\"doi\":\"10.4314/ejhs.v35i1.5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Neonatal circumcision is the oldest and most common surgical procedure The safety, ease, and outcomes of various methods of surgical procedures for neonatal circumcision have become increasingly the focus in the reviews of this procedure. This study aimed to identify the easy, safe and acceptable method for neonatal circumcision.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective study involved 357 male neonates, divided into three groups based on the methods used for neonatal circumcision: artery-forceps, bone-cutter, and Gomco methods. Clamps were uniformly applied for 7 minutes (420 seconds). The study assessed procedure time, primary and reactionary bleeding, and outcomes using the adapted Paediatric Penile Perception (PPP) score. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 23, with a p-value set at <0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Each group consisted of 119 neonates. The bone-cutter method was the fastest (590.2 ± 60.14 seconds), while the Gomco method was the slowest (624.2 ± 55.16 seconds, p<0.001). Primary bleeding occurred most frequently with the artery-forceps method (37 out of 119), and least with the bone-cutter (p<0.001). Only the artery-forceps group had reactionary bleeding (p=0.018). The bone-cutter and Gomco methods had the highest PPP mean scores: 11.91 ± 0.390 and 11.87 ± 0.566, respectively (p<0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The bone-cutter method is the fastest, safest, and produces the best cosmetic outcomes of the three methods studied.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12003,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"28-34\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11837788/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4314/ejhs.v35i1.5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/ejhs.v35i1.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:新生儿包皮环切术是最古老和最常见的外科手术,各种手术方法的安全性、便利性和结果日益成为该手术的综述重点。本研究旨在寻找简便、安全、可接受的新生儿包皮环切术方法。方法:这项前瞻性研究纳入了357名男婴,根据新生儿包皮环切术的方法分为三组:动脉钳、切骨器和Gomco方法。夹钳均匀放置7分钟(420秒)。该研究评估了手术时间,原发性和反应性出血,以及使用儿科阴茎感知(PPP)评分的结果。数据采用SPSS version 23进行分析,p值设于Results:每组119例新生儿。切骨法最快(590.2±60.14秒),Gomco法最慢(624.2±55.16秒)。结论:切骨法是三种方法中最快、最安全、美容效果最好的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Comparison of Three Techniques in Neonatal Circumcision: Artery Forceps, Bone-cutter, and Gomco Clamp Methods.

Background: Neonatal circumcision is the oldest and most common surgical procedure The safety, ease, and outcomes of various methods of surgical procedures for neonatal circumcision have become increasingly the focus in the reviews of this procedure. This study aimed to identify the easy, safe and acceptable method for neonatal circumcision.

Methods: This prospective study involved 357 male neonates, divided into three groups based on the methods used for neonatal circumcision: artery-forceps, bone-cutter, and Gomco methods. Clamps were uniformly applied for 7 minutes (420 seconds). The study assessed procedure time, primary and reactionary bleeding, and outcomes using the adapted Paediatric Penile Perception (PPP) score. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 23, with a p-value set at <0.05.

Results: Each group consisted of 119 neonates. The bone-cutter method was the fastest (590.2 ± 60.14 seconds), while the Gomco method was the slowest (624.2 ± 55.16 seconds, p<0.001). Primary bleeding occurred most frequently with the artery-forceps method (37 out of 119), and least with the bone-cutter (p<0.001). Only the artery-forceps group had reactionary bleeding (p=0.018). The bone-cutter and Gomco methods had the highest PPP mean scores: 11.91 ± 0.390 and 11.87 ± 0.566, respectively (p<0.001).

Conclusion: The bone-cutter method is the fastest, safest, and produces the best cosmetic outcomes of the three methods studied.

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
Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences
Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
137
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences is a general health science journal addressing clinical medicine, public health and biomedical sciences. Rarely, it covers veterinary medicine
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信