Circumcision with a novel disposable device in Chinese children: A randomized controlled trial

International Journal of Urology

Volumn 20, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 220-226

  Pan, Feng ^a,b   Pan, Lianjun ^b   Zhang, Aixia ^b   Liu, Yong ^b   Zhang, Fenglei ^b   Dai, Yutian ^a  

^a NANJING UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b WOMEN S HOSPITAL OF NANJING MEDICAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

Children; Circumcision; Circumcision device

Indexed keywords

PARACETAMOL;

ARTICLE; CHILD; CHINESE; CIRCUMCISION; CONTROLLED STUDY; CONVENTIONAL SCALPEL SUTURE TECHNIQUE; DISPOSABLE EQUIPMENT; DOUBLE BLIND PROCEDURE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OPERATION DURATION; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PHIMOSIS; POSTOPERATIVE EDEMA; POSTOPERATIVE HEMORRHAGE; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REOPERATION; SCALPEL; SCAR FORMATION; SCHOOL CHILD; SHENGHUAN DISPOSABLE DEVICE; SURGICAL INFECTION; SUTURING METHOD; TISSUE ADHESION; WOUND DEHISCENCE;

BLOOD LOSS, SURGICAL; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; CHINA; CIRCUMCISION, MALE; DISPOSABLE EQUIPMENT; DOUBLE-BLIND METHOD; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; NERVE BLOCK; PAIN, POSTOPERATIVE; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATIONS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RISK ASSESSMENT; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC; SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS; SUTURE TECHNIQUES; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WOUND HEALING;

EID: 84873249673     PISSN: 09198172     EISSN: 14422042     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.03132.x     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Moses S, Bailey RC, Ronald AR. Male circumcision: assessment of health benefits and risks. Sex. Transm. Infect. 1998; 74: 368-373.
2. Morris BJ. Why circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21(st) century. Bioessays 2007; 29: 1147-1158.
3. Tucker SC, Cerqueiro J, Sterne GD, Bracka A. Circumcision: a refined technique and 5 year review. Ann. R. Coll. Surg. Engl. 2001; 83: 121-125.
4. Bastos Netto JM, de Araujo JG Jr, de Almeida Noronha MF, Passos BR, de Bessa J Jr, Figueiredo AA. Prospective randomized trial comparing dissection with Plastibell circumcision. J. Pediatr. Urol. 2010; 6: 572-577.
5. Mendez-Gallart R, Estevez E, Bautista A etal. Bipolar scissors circumcision is a safe, fast, and bloodless procedure in children. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2009; 44: 2048-2053.
6. Samad A, Khanzada TW, Kumar B. Plastibell circumcision: a minor surgical procedure of major importance. J. Pediatr. Urol. 2010; 6: 28-31.
7. Aldemir M, Cakan M, Burgu B. Circumcision with a new disposable clamp: is it really easier and more reliable? Int. Urol. Nephrol. 2008; 40: 377-381.
8. Senel FM, Demirelli M, Oztek S. Minimally invasive circumcision with a novel plastic clamp technique: a review of 7, 500 cases. Pediatr. Surg. Int. 2010; 26: 739-745.
9. Senel FM, Demirelli M, Pekcan H. Mass circumcision with a novel plastic clamp technique. Urology 2011; 78: 174-179.
10. Peng YF, Cheng Y, Wang GY etal. Clinical application of a new device for minimally invasive circumcision. Asian J. Androl. 2008; 10: 447-454.
11. Yan B, You H, Zhang K etal. Circumcision with the Chinese Shang Ring in children: outcomes of 824 cases. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue 2010; 16: 250-253.
12. Li HN, Xu J, Qu LM. Shang Ring circumcision versus conventional surgical procedures: comparison of clinical effectiveness. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue 2010; 16: 325-327.
13. Barone MA, Ndede F, Li PS etal. The Shang Ring device for adult male circumcision: a proof of concept study in Kenya. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 2011; 57: e7-12.
14. Elder JS. Abnormalities of the genitalia in boys and their surgical management. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaughan ED (eds). Campbell's Urology, 8th edn. Saunders-Elsevier, Philadelphia, PA, 2002; 2335-2353.
15. Hayashi Y, Kojima Y, Mizuno K, Kohri K. Prepuce: phimosis, paraphimosis, and circumcision. Scientific World Journal 2011; 11: 289-301.
16. Serour F, Cohen A, Mandelberg A, Mori J, Ezra S. Dorsal penile nerve block in children undergoing circumcision in a day-care surgery. Can. J. Anaesth. 1996; 43: 954-958.
17. Huet A, Lucas-Polomeni MM, Robert JC, Sixou JL, Wodey E. Hypnosis and dental anesthesia in children: a prospective controlled study. Int. J. Clin. Exp. Hypn. 2011; 59: 424-440.
18. Ge CG, Liu DL. Clinical observation of adult circumcision with removal ring device. Chin. J. Mod. Med. 2005; 15: 3028-3030.
19. Van Howe RS. Variability in penile appearance and penile findings: a prospective study. Br. J. Urol. 1997; 80: 776-782.
20. Hutcheson JC. Male neonatal circumcision: indications, controversies and complications. Urol. Clin. North Am. 2004; 31: 461-467.
21. Mousavi SA, Salehifar E. 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; 2008: 1-5 ID 606123.
22. Brisson PA, Patel HI, Feins NR. Revision of circumcision in children: report of 56 cases. J. Pediatr. Surg. 2002; 37: 1343-1346.