Literature DB >> 17899432

Circumcision with a new disposable clamp: is it really easier and more reliable?

Mustafa Aldemir1, Murat Cakan, Berk Burgu.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the results of a new disposable clamp (SCD) used for routine circumcision in our department, compared with the conventional dissection tecnique (CDT) in infants and children.
METHODS: The SCD and CDT were evaluated prospectively, in terms of the duration, complication rate and postoperative pain assesment. The cosmetic result and parents' satisfaction were evaluated after 6 weeks. A total of 200 boys were included in the study (with a median age of 4.45 years). RESULTS AND
CONCLUSIONS: The median operative duration was 10 min less for the SCD (18 vs 8 min; P < 0.001). There was no difference in complication rates for both groups. The cosmetic results assessed by a blinded urologist were better for the SCD group (P < 0.001). The parents' satisfaction score for the procedure was similar in both groups, as 8 out of a scale up to 10 filled in by the parents. Circumcision with the SCD is quicker and leads to a better cosmetic results than with the CDT, without increasing morbidity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 17899432     DOI: 10.1007/s11255-007-9275-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol        ISSN: 0301-1623            Impact factor:   2.370


  9 in total

1.  [Pain measurement in clinical practice].

Authors:  A C Linssen; P Spinhoven
Journal:  Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd       Date:  1991-03-30

2.  Circumcision in a national sample of 4-year-old children.

Authors:  D MACCARTHY; J W B DOUGLAS; C MOGFORD
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1952-10-04

3.  Determination of the minimal clinically significant difference on a patient visual analog satisfaction scale.

Authors:  A J Singer; H C Thode
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 3.451

4.  The historic significance of circumcision.

Authors:  S J Waszak
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1978-04       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Circumcision--a continuing enigma.

Authors:  I O Leitch
Journal:  Aust Paediatr J       Date:  1970-03

6.  Surgical circumcision of neonates: a history of its development.

Authors:  E Grossman; N A Posner
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  1981-08       Impact factor: 7.661

7.  Child, parent, and physician reports of a child's headache pain: relationships prior to and following treatment.

Authors:  F Andrasik; E J Burke; V Attanasio; E L Rosenblum
Journal:  Headache       Date:  1985-11       Impact factor: 5.887

8.  A randomized trial to assess childhood circumcision with the Plastibell device compared to a conventional dissection technique.

Authors:  I A Fraser; M J Allen; P F Bagshaw; M Johnstone
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  1981-08       Impact factor: 6.939

Review 9.  Neonatal circumcision techniques.

Authors:  J R Holman; E L Lewis; R L Ringler
Journal:  Am Fam Physician       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 3.292

  9 in total
  4 in total

1.  SmartClamp circumcision versus conventional dissection technique in terms of parental anxiety and outcomes: A prospective clinical study.

Authors:  Mert Ali Karadag; Kursat Cecen; Aslan Demir; Yuksel Kivrak; Murat Bagcioglu; Ramazan Kocaaslan; Mustafa Ari; Fatih Altunrende
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2015 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Circumcision: pros and cons.

Authors:  Berk Burgu; Ozgu Aydogdu; Semih Tangal; Tarkan Soygur
Journal:  Indian J Urol       Date:  2010 Jan-Mar

Review 3.  Complications of circumcision in male neonates, infants and children: a systematic review.

Authors:  Helen A Weiss; Natasha Larke; Daniel Halperin; Inon Schenker
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2010-02-16       Impact factor: 2.264

4.  Circumcision with plastic Alisclamp technique in 4733 boys: our experiences to reduce complications

Authors:  Alev Süzen; Süleyman Cüneyt Karakuş; Nazile Ertürk
Journal:  Turk J Med Sci       Date:  2021-06-28       Impact factor: 0.973

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.