Ponce SN, Mora CB, Perdomo SI, González VV, Delgado DA

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 52-62
PDF size: 124.10 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: the paraphimosis is frequent in emergence services. Its early reduction is easy, but if children come late it may to be a serious problem. Due to the unsuccessful and painful attempts of reduction, these patients suffer a significant charge of emotional tension.
Objectives: to describe and to show the implementation of a practical method of painless manual reduction in patients with a prolonged paraphimosis.
Methods: a descriptive, prospective and longitudinal study was conducted in patients treated (25), diagnosed with paraphimosis of long term course (+ 12 hr) from January, 2009 to June, 2011. A method based in the subcutaneous annular anesthetic block was applied in the penis base derived of the pudendal innervation. The following variables were selected: age, triggering external cause, initial conservative treatment, to until reduction and complications. Information was processed in absolute frequency and percentages where the results were significant tests for its statistic analysis.
Results: the sudden manipulation of prepuce by mother leads to this complication in the 68 % of children aged under 5. The conservative treatments caused a significant delay for its reduction in the 80 % of cases.
Conclusions: this method is well accepted by patient giving him a painless solution and it is of easy application in emergence services. Procedures more painful like the phimotomy are avoided.

REFERENCES

1. Garat JM. Manejo conservador del prepucio. Rev Pediatr de Atención Primaria. 2001;3(11):73-81.

2. Morales Concepción JC. Enfermedades del pene. En: Colectivo de autores. Temas de Urología. La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Médicas; 2010. p. 283-5.

3. Morales Concepción JC, González Fernández P, Morales Aranegui A, Cordiés Jackson E, Guerra Rodríguez M, Mora Casaco B. Fimosis: ¿son necesarias la circuncisión o la dilatación forzada? Rev Cubana Pediatr. 2001;73(4):206-11.

4. Nihu SD, Stock JA, Kaplan GW. Neonatal circumcision. Urol Clin North Am. 1995;22:57-65.

5. Mark Beers H, Robert Porter S. Trastornos peneanos y escrotales. En: El Manual Merck de diagnóstico y tratamiento. 11ª ed. Tomo XIII. Madrid: Editorial Elsevier; 2007. p. 2247-53.

6. Richard Behrman E, Robert kliegman M, Hal Jenson B. Anomalías del pene y la uretra. En: Nelson. Tratado de Pediatría. 17ª ed. Madrid: Editorial Elsevier; 2004. p. 1812-17.

7. López Maya L, Lina Manjarrez F, Fuente Ramos F, Lina-López Monserrat L. Manejo anestésico para circuncisión en niños: Bloqueo del nervio dorsal del pene versus anestesia general. Rev Mex de Anestesia. 2009;32(4):239-46.

8. Lönnqvist PA. Postoperative analgesia in infants and children. Br J Anaesth. 2005;95:50-60.

9. Serour F. Circumcision in children with penile block alone. J Urol. 1995;153:474-81.

10. Berde CB. Local anesthetics in infants and children an update. Rev Pediatr Anaesth. 2004;14:387-93.

11. Moyao D. Dolor posoperatorio en el paciente pediátrico. Rev Mex Anest. 2004;27:138-51.