| Autor: |
Chuying Qin, Jinrui Yang, Ruochen Zhang, Yaojin Yang, Wanghai Cai, Tao Li, Qingguo Zhu, Liefu Ye, Yunliang Gao, Yongbao Wei |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Rok vydání: |
2022 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
Frontiers in Surgery, Vol 9 (2022) |
| Druh dokumentu: |
article |
| ISSN: |
2296-875X |
| DOI: |
10.3389/fsurg.2022.804803 |
| Popis: |
BackgroundTo compare the middle-term efficacy and safety results between scrotoscope-assisted (SA) minimally invasive excision and traditional open excision (OE) for the treatment of epididymal mass.MethodsA total of 253 males with surgery excision of epididymal mass from 2012 to 2018 were included in this retrospective study. Patients were divided into two groups: the traditional OE group and the SA group. Patient demographics and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes were obtained and compared between these two groups.ResultsAbout 174 patients (68.8%) underwent SA, and the other 79 (31.2%) underwent OE. Demographic data were similar between the two groups. Compared with OE surgery, SA could significantly shorten the operating time (19.4 ± 4.1 vs. 53.8 ± 12.9 min), reduce blood loss (5.3 ± 1.5 vs. 21.3 ± 5.6 ml), and downsize the operative incision (1.5 ± 0.3 vs. 4.5 ± 0.8 cm). Additionally, postoperative complications were significantly less occurred in the SA group than those in OE (15.5% vs. 21.5%), in particular scrotal hematoma (1.7% vs. 12.7%) and incision discomfort (2.8% vs. 6.3%). Patients in the SA group had a significantly higher overall satisfaction score (94.8 ± 3.7 vs. 91.7 ± 4.9) and a significantly shorter length of hospital stay (4.1 ± 0.9 vs. 5.0 ± 1.5 days) than those in the OE group. No postoperative testicular atrophy occurred in the SA group.ConclusionSA is emerging as a novel and effective option with promising perspectives for epididymal mass therapy. |
| Databáze: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
