Clinical application of a new device for minimally invasive circumcision

Aim： To study the clinical effects of a disposable circumcision device in treatment of male patients of different ages with either phimosis or excess foreskin. Methods： One thousand two hundred patients between the age of 5 and 95 years underwent circumcision using this procedure in the 2-year period between October 2005 and September 2007. Of these cases, 904 had excess foreskin and 296 were cases of phimosis. Results： In 96.33% of the cases the incision healed, leaving a minimal amount of the inner foreskin with no scarring and producing good cosmetic results. There were no incidents of device dislocation or damage to the frenulum. The average operative time was 2.5 min for excess foreskin, and 3.5 min for phimosis. During the 7 days of wearing the device, mild to moderate edema occurred in 10.08 % of cases with excess foreskin and in 2.58 % of those with phimosis. Edema in the frenulum was seen in 1.67% of patients, and only 0.67% had an infection of the incision. A total of 86.25% of patients reported pain due to penile erection. After removal of the device, 0.58% of the cases had minimal bleeding around the incision, and 2.42% had wound dehiscence. Conclusion： The new device can be applied to an overwhelming majority of patients with phimosis and excess foreskin. This technique is relatively simple to perform, and patients who underwent this surgery had very few complications. Antibiotics were not required and patients reported less pain than those who were circumcised using conventional methods. Circumcision with this device requires minimal tissue manipulation, and is quicker and safer than circumcision using conventional techniques.

Disposable circumcision suture device： clinical effect and patient satisfaction

In our experience patients undergoing circumcision are mostly concerned about pain and penile appearances. We conducted a prospective randomized trial to assess the benefits of a new disposable circumcision suture device （DCSD）. A total of 942 patients were equally divided into three groups （conventional circumcision, Shang ring and disposable suture device group）. Patients in the DCSD group were anesthetized with compound 5% lidocaine cream, the others with a 2% lidocaine penile block. Operation time, intra-operative blood loss, incision healing time, intra-operative and post-operative pain, the penile appearance and overall satisfaction degree were measured. Operation time and intra-operative blood loss were significantly lower in the Shang ring and suture device groups compared to the conventional group （P 〈 0.001）. Intra-operative pain was less in the suture device group compared With the other two groups （P 〈 0.001）; whereas post-operative pain was higher in the conventional group compared to the other two groups （P 〈 0.001）. Patients in the suture device （80.57%） and Shang ring （73,57%） groups were more satisfied with penile appearances compared with the conventional circumcision group （20.06%, P 〈 0.05）. Patients in suture device group also healed markedly faster than the conventional group （P 〈 0.01）. The overall satisfaction rate was better in the suture device group （78.66%） compared with the conventional （47.13%） and Shang ring （50.00%） groups （P 〈 0.05）. The combination of DCSD and lidocaine cream resulted in shorter operation and incision healing times, reduced intra-operative and post-operative pain and improved patient satisfaction with the cosmetic appearances.

Use of a disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision： a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review assessed the safety and efficacy of the disposable circumcision suture device （DCSD） and conventional circumcision （CC） in the treatment of redundant prepuce and phimosis. Two independent reviewers conducted a literature search for randomized controlled trials （RCTs） using the DCSD and CC for the treatment of redundant prepuce or phimosis in China and abroad. Nine RCTs （1898 cases） were included. Compared with the CC group, the DCSD group had a shorter operative time （standardized mean difference [SMD] = -21.44; 95% confidence intervals [95% CIs] [-25.08, -17.79]; P 〈 0.00001）, shorter wound healing time （SMD = -3.66; 95% CI [-5.46, -1.85]; P 〈 0.0001）, less intraoperative blood loss （SMD = -9.64; 95% CI [-11.37, -7.90]; P 〈 0.00001）, better cosmetic penile appearance （odds ratio [OR] =8.77; 95% CI [5.90, 13.02]; P 〈 0.00001）, lower intraoperative pain score, lower 24-h postoperative pain score, lower incidence of infection, less incision edema, and fewer adverse events. There were no differences between the CC and DCSD groups in the incidences of dehiscence, or hematoma. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that the DCSD appears to be safer and more effective than CC. However, additional high-quality RCTs with larger study populations are needed.