ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2017
Evaluation of clinical curative effects of disposable stitching instrument in redundant prepuce patients.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Circumcision devices versus standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult male circumcisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Optimizing treatment strategies for pediatric phimosis and redundant prepuce: a comparative study of traditional circumcision and disposable circumcision stapler.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
- Circumcision devices versus standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult male circumcisions: a Cochrane review.BJU international · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present study aimed to investigate the clinical curative effect of disposable stitching instrument operation in patients with redundant prepuce or phimosis. A total of 102 cases of patients with circumcision were randomly selected (from June 2013 to December 2014) from the department of plastic and aesthetic surgery of our hospital and were randomly divided into control and observation groups (n=51). Patients in the control group were treated by traditional circumcision operation, while patients in the observation group were treated by novel disposable circumcision stitching instrument. Operation time, bleeding volume, incision healing time, postoperative complications and incision aesthetic satisfaction in the groups were observed. As a result, intraoperative bleeding volume of patients in the observation group was significantly less in comparison to the control group. Operation time and incision healing time of patients in the observation group was shorter than that of the control group. Additionally, the incidence of postoperative complications of patients in the observation group was noted to be lower than that of the control group. On the other hand, the incision aesthetic satisfaction of patients in the observation group was higher than that of the control group. Blood vessel counting and nerve fiber counting of tissue specimen in the observation group were more than those of the control group. Postoperative VAS scores of patients in the observation group were significantly lower than that of the control group. Each rating scale scores of EPQ of patients in the observation group improved significantly compared with that of the control group. In conclusion, the present findings show that disposable circumcision stitching instrument operation is more advantageous in comparison to the traditional procedure along with minimal compilations and better post surgery health condition of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.