Home  |   Archive  |   Online Submission  |   News & Events  |   Subscribe  |   APFA  |   Society  |   Contact Us  |   中文版
Search   
 
Journal

Ahead of print
Authors' Accepted
    Manuscripts
new!
Current Issue
Archive
Acknowledgments
Special Issues
Browse by Category

Manuscript Submission

Online Submission
Online Review
Instruction for Authors
Instruction for Reviewers
English Corner new!

About AJA

About AJA
Editorial Board
Contact Us
News

Resources & Services

Advertisement
Subscription
Email alert
Proceedings
Reprints

Download area

Copyright licence
EndNote style file
Manuscript word template
Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in English)

Guidance for AJA figures
    preparation (in Chinese)

Proof-reading for the
    authors

AJA Club (in English)
AJA Club (in Chinese)

 
Abstract

Volume 19, Issue 3 (May 2017) 19, 362–367; 10.4103/1008-682X.174855

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

Zhong-Chao Huo1, Gang Liu2, Xiao-Yan Li3, Fei Liu4, Wen-Ju Fan2, Ru-Hua Guan5, Pei-Feng Li1, De-Yang Mo2, Yong-Zhi He2

1 Department of Urology, People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning 530021, Guangxi; Graduate School, Guangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanning 530200, Guangxi, China
2 Department of Urology, People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning 530021, Guangxi, China
3 Department of Operating Room, People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning 530021, Guangxi, China
4 Research Center of Medical Sciences, The People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning 530021, Guangxi, China
5 Graduate School, North China University of Science and Technology, Tangshan 063000, Hebei, China

Correspondence: Dr. G Liu (dr.lg@163.com)

Date of Submission 19-May-2015 Date of Decision 14-Jul-2015 Date of Acceptance 25-Dec-2015 Date of Web Publication 11-Mar-2016

Abstract

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.

Keywords: conventional circumcision; disposable circumcision suture device; meta-analysis; phimosis; redundant prepuce; systematic review

Full Text | PDF |

 
Browse:  1329
 
Asian Journal of Andrology CN 31-1795/R ISSN 1008-682X  Copyright © 2023  Shanghai Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Sciences.  All rights reserved.