A Comparative Study on the Clinical Efficacy of Two Different Disposable Circumcision Suture Devices in Adult Males

Junwen Shen, Jihan Shi, jianguo Gao, Ning Wang, Jianer Tang, Bin Yu, Weigao Wang, Rongjiang Wang

Abstract


150

Purpose: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of two different kinds of disposable circumcision suture devices in adult men.
Materials and Methods: Adult male patients (n = 179; mean age: 23.7 years) with redundant prepuce and/or phimosis were included in a clinical trial from July 2015 to August 2016. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group A using the Langhe disposable circumcision suture device (n = 89), and group B using the Daming disposable circumcision suture device (n = 94).
Results: Intraoperative and postoperative bleeding were more serious in the group A of disposable circumcision suture device compared with the group B of disposable circumcision suture device (4.21 ± 1.31 ml) versus (2.56 ± 1.45 ml). Patients in the group B of disposable circumcision suture device had a longer swelling time (group A versus group B: 11.7 ± 0.9 days versus 14.5 ± 1.4 days), the postoperative pain score in the 7 days after surgery (group A versus group B: 2.9 ± 0.9 versus 3.8 ± 1.5), and higher postoperative infection rate (group A versus group B: 4.7% versus 13.8%), the differences were statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: postoperative complications of the two kinds of disposable circumcision suture devices are different. We should pay attention to the risk of postoperative bleeding when the patients use the Langhe disposable circumcision suture device, while the patients who use the Langhe disposable circumcision suture device will have a longer healing time, and postoperative pain and the risk of infection cannot be ignored after the surgery.

Full Text:

PDF

55

References


Dunsmuir, W. D. & Gordon, E. M. The history of circumcision. BJU Int 1993; 83 Suppl 1, 1-12.

Hayashi, Y. & Kohri, K. Circumcision related to urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted infections, human immunodeficiency virus infections, and penile and cervical cancer. Int J Urol 2013: 769-75.

Williams, N. & Kapila, L. Complications of circumcision. Br J Surg 1993: 1231-6.

Ahmed, A., Mbibi, N. H., Dawam, D. & Kalayi, G. D. Complications of traditional male circumcision. Ann Trop Paediatr 1999 : 113-7.

Gu, C. et al. Introducing the Quill device for modified sleeve circumcision with subcutaneous suture: a retrospective study of 70 cases. Urol Int 2015 : 255-61.

Pan, F. et al. Circumcision with a novel disposable device in Chinese children: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Urol 2013: 220-6.

Mohta, A. Editorial Comment from Dr Mohta to circumcision with a novel disposable device in Chinese children: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Urol 2013: 228-9.

Millard, P. S., Wilson, H. R., Goldstuck, N. D. & Anaso, C. Rapid, minimally invasive adult voluntary male circumcision: a randomised trial of Unicirc, a novel disposable device. S Afr Med J 2013: 52-7.

Shaffer, D. N. et al. The protective effect of circumcision on HIV incidence in rural low-risk men circumcised predominantly by traditional circumcisers in Kenya: two-year follow-up of the Kericho HIV Cohort Study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2007: 371-9.

Kelly, R. et al. Age of male circumcision and risk of prevalent HIV infection in rural Uganda. AIDS 1999: 399-405.

Gray, R. et al. The effectiveness of male circumcision for HIV prevention and effects on risk behaviors in a posttrial follow-up study. AIDS 2012: 609-15.

Bitega, J. P., Ngeruka, M. L., Hategekimana, T., Asiimwe, A. & Binagwaho, A. Safety and efficacy of the PrePex device for rapid scale-up of male circumcision for HIV prevention in resource-limited settings. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2011: 127-34.

Zhang, Z. et al. Application of a novel disposable suture device in circumcision: a prospective non-randomized controlled study. Int Urol Nephrol 2016: 465-73.

Ren, Y. & Yan, J. J. [Modified circumcision with a disposable suture device]. Zhonghua nan ke xue = National journal of andrology 2015: 541-4.

Huo, Z. C. et al. Use of a disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl, 2017: 362-7.

Cao, D. H., Dong, Q. & Wei, Q. Commentary on "Disposable circumcision suture device: clinical effect and patient satisfaction". Asian J Androl 2015: 516.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22037/uj.v14i5.3811


Creative Commons License 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License