Jin-rui Yang1, Yong-bao Wei2, Bin Yan3, Zhuo Yin3, Yun-Liang Gao3, Zhao Wang3, Ke-qin Zhou3. 1. Department of Urology, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, P.R. China. Electronic address: yjinrui2012@163.com. 2. Department of Urology, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, P.R. China; Department of Urology, Fujian Provincial Hospital, The Teaching Hospital of Fujian Medical University, Fuzhou, P.R. China. 3. Department of Urology, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, P.R. China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To provide a new surgical technique for epididymal cyst (EC) treatment and to assess its safety and efficiency. METHODS:Forty-eight patients with symptomatic EC were randomized into 2 groups. One group (n = 23) received traditional open epididymal cystectomy (OEC) and the other group (n = 25) underwent minimal epididymal cystectomy with scrotoscope (MECS), which provided a clear vision of scrotal contents. Demographic information and perioperative and postoperative outcomes data were obtained and analyzed during a 2- to 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: No significant differences between the OEC and MECS groups were found in demographic information. Compared with OEC group, the MECS group had a shorter operating time (18.6 ± 2.9 vs 54.5 ± 7.0 minutes; P <.05), shorter incision length (1.1 ± 0.2 vs 4.8 ± 0.6 cm; P <.05), and less blood loss (4.6 ± 1.6 vs 17.0 ± 3.1 g; P <.05). Except for the 8.0% rate (2 of 25) of scrotal edema after MECS and 17.4% rate (4 of 23) of scrotal hematoma after OEC, both groups resulted in 0% incidence of testis or epididymis injury, wound infection, and cyst recurrence based on postoperative outcome data. Significant differences were observed after MECS compared with those after OEC based on the rates of symptom relief (95.2% vs 61.1%; P <.05) and days of wound pain (12.1 ± 2.6 vs 17.7 ± 4.1 days; P <.05). CONCLUSION: For the first time, our study applied scrotoscope as a new alternative technique for EC treatment. Scrotoscope provides a clear field of vision and makes tissues harvested available for pathologic examination when performing decortications of EC. The results suggest MECS may be a safe, effective, and encouraging new technique.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To provide a new surgical technique for epididymal cyst (EC) treatment and to assess its safety and efficiency. METHODS: Forty-eight patients with symptomatic EC were randomized into 2 groups. One group (n = 23) received traditional open epididymal cystectomy (OEC) and the other group (n = 25) underwent minimal epididymal cystectomy with scrotoscope (MECS), which provided a clear vision of scrotal contents. Demographic information and perioperative and postoperative outcomes data were obtained and analyzed during a 2- to 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: No significant differences between the OEC and MECS groups were found in demographic information. Compared with OEC group, the MECS group had a shorter operating time (18.6 ± 2.9 vs 54.5 ± 7.0 minutes; P <.05), shorter incision length (1.1 ± 0.2 vs 4.8 ± 0.6 cm; P <.05), and less blood loss (4.6 ± 1.6 vs 17.0 ± 3.1 g; P <.05). Except for the 8.0% rate (2 of 25) of scrotal edema after MECS and 17.4% rate (4 of 23) of scrotal hematoma after OEC, both groups resulted in 0% incidence of testis or epididymis injury, wound infection, and cyst recurrence based on postoperative outcome data. Significant differences were observed after MECS compared with those after OEC based on the rates of symptom relief (95.2% vs 61.1%; P <.05) and days of wound pain (12.1 ± 2.6 vs 17.7 ± 4.1 days; P <.05). CONCLUSION: For the first time, our study applied scrotoscope as a new alternative technique for EC treatment. Scrotoscope provides a clear field of vision and makes tissues harvested available for pathologic examination when performing decortications of EC. The results suggest MECS may be a safe, effective, and encouraging new technique.