Prospective randomized trial comparing dissection with Plastibell ® circumcision

Journal of Pediatric Urology

Volumn 6, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 572-577

  Bastos Netto, José Murillo ^a,b   De Araújo Jr , José Gonalves ^a   De Almeida Noronha, Marcos Flávio ^a   Passos, Bruno Rezende ^a   De Bessa Jr , José ^c   Figueiredo, André Avarese ^a  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF JUIZ DE FORA   (Brazil)

^b SUPREMA   (Brazil)

^c DEPARTAMENTO DE CIÊNCIAS BIOLÓGICAS   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Children; Circumcision; Phimosis; Plastibell

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; CHILD; CIRCUMCISION; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INFANT; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OPERATION DURATION; PHIMOSIS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; POSTOPERATIVE HEMORRHAGE; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SCHOOL CHILD; SURGICAL EQUIPMENT; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; CIRCUMCISION, MALE; HUMANS; INFANT; INTRAOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; MALE; PENIS; PHIMOSIS; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS;

EID: 78049289048     PISSN: 14775131     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2010.01.005     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. J.M. Elmore, L.A. Baker, and W.T. Snodgras Topical steroid therapy as an alternative to circumcision for phimosis in boys younger than 3 years J Urol 168 2002 1746 1747
2. F.O. Pileggi, and Y.A. Vicente Phimotic ring topical corticoid cream (0,1% mometasone furoate) treatment in children J Pediatr Surg 42 2007 1749 1752
3. R.G. Freitas, Y.D. Nobre, G.T.S. Demarchi, M. Hachul, A. Macedo Jr., and M. Srougi Topical treatment for phimosis: time span and other factors behind treatment effectiveness J Pediatr Urol 2 2006 380 385
4. A. Orsola, J. Caffaratti, and J.M. Garat Conservative treatment of phimosis in children using a topical steroid Urology 56 2000 307 310
5. H. Hirji, R. Charlton, and S. Sarmah Male circumcision: a review of the evidence J Mens Health Gend 2 2005 21 30
6. E.O. Laumann, C.M. Masi, and E.W. Zuckerman Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice JAMA 277 1997 1052 1057
7. S.C. Tucker, J. Cerqueiro, G.D. Sterne, and A. Bracka Circumcision: a refined technique and 5 year review Ann R Coll Surg Engl 83 2001 121 125
8. R. Subramaniam, and A.S. Jacobsen Sutureless circumcision: a prospective randomised controlled study Pediatr Surg Int 20 2004 783 785
9. D.C. O'Sullivan, M.R. Heal, and C.S. Powell Circumcision: how do urologists do it? Br J Urol 78 1996 265 270
10. J. Lazarus, A. Alexander, and H. Rode Circumcision complications associated with the Plastibell device S Afr Med J 97 2007 192 193
11. B.G. Cilento Jr., N.M. Holmes, and D.A. Canning Plastibell complications revisited Clin Pediatr (Phila) 38 1999 685 686
12. M.K. Jensen Surgery for phimosis with Plastibell. A follow-up study Ugeskr Laeger 160 1998 3920 3923
13. Y.L.M. Mak, S.C. Cho, and M.W. Fai Childhood circumcision: conventional dissection or Plastibell device - a prospective randomized trial Hong Kong Pract 17 1995 101 105
14. I.A. Fraser, M.J. Allen, P.F. Bagshaw, and M. Johnstone A randomized trial to assess childhood circumcision with the Plastibell device compared to a conventional dissection technique Br J Surg 68 1981 593 595
15. S.A. Mousavi, and E. Salehifar Circumcision complications associated with the Plastibell device and conventional dissection surgery: a trial of 586 infants of ages up to 12 months Adv Urol 2008 606123 Epub 2008 Nov 4
16. H. Kayaba, H. Tamur, S. Kitajima, Y. Fujiwara, T. Kato, and T. Kato Analysis of Shape and retractability of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys J Urol 156 1996 1813 1815
17. W.D. Dunsmuir, and E.M. Gordon The history of circumcision Br J Urol 83 Suppl. 1999 1 12
18. Z.S. Prucha Circumcision? cutting out the routine cut Can Med Assoc J 122 1980 834
19. C.M. Lannon, A.G.D. Bailey, A.R. Fleischman, G.W. Kaplan, C.T. Shoemaker, and J.T. Swanson Circumcision policy statement. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on circumcision Pediatrics 103 1999 686 693
20. I.O. Leitch Circumcision: a continuing enigma Aust Pediatr 6 1970 59 65
21. Policy Statement - Publications Retired and Reaffirmed - American Academy of Pediatrics Pediatrics 116 2005 796
22. R.E. Johnsonbaugh Complication of a circumcision performed with a plastic disposable circumcision device: long-term follow-up Am J Dis Child 133 4 1979 438
23. ® device in neonatal circumcision in 2,000 instances Surg Gynecol Obstet 167 1988 341 343
24. ® circumcision ring Urology 9 1977 57 58
25. ® complications revisited Clin Pediatr (Phila) 38 1999 685 686
26. C.O. Bode, S. Ikhisemojie, and A.O. Ademuyiwa Penile injuries from proximal migration of the plastibell circumcision ring J Pediatr Urol 6 2010 23 27
27. J.C. Hutcheson Male neonatal circumcision: indications, controversies and complications Urol Clin North Am 31 2004 461 467
28. M.M. Kazem, A.Z. Mehdi, K.Z. Golrasteh, and F.Z. Behzad Comparative evaluation of two techniques of hemostasis in neonatal circumcision using plastibell device J Pediatr Urol 6 3 2010 258 260
29. M.F. Atalla, and M.N. Taweela Pathogenesis of post-circumcision adhesions Pediatr Surg Int 9 1994 103 105
30. R.S. Van Howe Variability in penile appearance and penile findings: a prospective study Br J Urol 80 1997 776 782
31. L.E. Ponsky, J.H. Ross, N. Knipper, and R. Kay Penile adhesions after neonatal circumcision J Urol 164 2000 495 496