Literature DB >> 22739133

HIV prevention: male circumcision comparison between a nonsurgical device to a surgical technique in resource-limited settings: a prospective, randomized, nonmasked trial.

Vincent Mutabazi1, Steven A Kaplan, Emile Rwamasirabo, Jean Paul Bitega, Muyenzi Leon Ngeruka, Dominique Savio, Corine Karema, Agnes Binagwaho.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trial studies have shown that male circumcision (MC) can reduce the risk of HIV infection by 53%-60%. The Joint United Nations Program on HIV and AIDS announced a 5-year plan to voluntarily circumcise 20 million men by 2015. There are more than 38 million males in sub-Saharan Africa that could benefit from MC for HIV prevention by 2015. Surgical MC is impractical for nation-wide coverage in resource-limited settings. Rwanda intends to launch a voluntary MC program to reach 2 million adult men in 2 years, an unattainable goal with surgical MC. This study was designed to compare a new nonsurgical device with surgical MC to assess nonsurgical MC suitability for scale-up.
METHODS: Prospective, randomized controlled trial in Rwanda in which the PrePex device was used for nonsurgical MC and the dorsal-slit method for surgical MC (ratio: 2:1). Subjects were healthy adult male volunteers aged 21-54 years. The primary endpoint, set by World Health Organization, was total MC procedure time.
FINDINGS: Of 217 eligible subjects, 144 were randomized to the PrePex/nonsurgical arm and 73 to the surgical arm. All subjects were circumcised in 10 working days. Nonsurgical MC was bloodless, without anesthesia, sutures, or sterile setting and with mean procedure time of 3.1 minutes (skin to skin), was significantly shorter than mean surgical procedure time (15.4 minutes skin to skin) (P < 0.0001). There were no device-related adverse events. Healing time of the PrePex arm was longer than the surgical arm.
CONCLUSION: PrePex, the nonsurgical MC, takes significantly less time than surgical, is as safe, does not require injections or sterile settings, is bloodless and seems to be suitable for nurses.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22739133     DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3182631d69

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr        ISSN: 1525-4135            Impact factor:   3.731


  41 in total

1.  Simple circumcision device: proof of concept for a single-visit, adjustable device to facilitate safe adult male circumcision.

Authors:  James M Hotaling; Laura S Leddy; Mahum A Haider; Matthew Mossanen; Michael R Bailey; Brian MacConaghy; Francis Olson; John N Krieger
Journal:  Fertil Steril       Date:  2014-03-06       Impact factor: 7.329

2.  The characteristics of circular disposable devices and in situ devices for optimizing male circumcision: a network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yu Fan; Dehong Cao; Qiang Wei; Zhuang Tang; Ping Tan; Lu Yang; Liangren Liu; Zhenhua Liu; Xiang Li; Wenbin Xue
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-05-09       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 3.  Circumcision devices versus standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult male circumcisions: a Cochrane review.

Authors:  Ameer Steven-Jorg Hohlfeld; Sumayyah Ebrahim; Muhammed Zaki Shaik; Tamara Kredo
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  2021-10-18       Impact factor: 5.969

4.  Shang Ring versus forceps-guided adult male circumcision: a randomized, controlled effectiveness study in southwestern Uganda.

Authors:  Samuel Kanyago; David M Riding; Elichum Mutakooha; Alcides Lopez de la O; Mark J Siedner
Journal:  J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr       Date:  2013-10-01       Impact factor: 3.731

Review 5.  Voluntary medical male circumcision in resource-constrained settings.

Authors:  Aaron A R Tobian; Tigistu Adamu; Jason B Reed; Valerian Kiggundu; Youseph Yazdi; Emmanuel Njeuhmeli
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2015-11-03       Impact factor: 14.432

6.  Making voluntary medical male circumcision a viable HIV prevention strategy in high prevalence countries by engaging the traditional sector.

Authors:  Nicola Bulled; Edward C Green
Journal:  Crit Public Health       Date:  2015-06-18

7.  Circumcision devices versus standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult male circumcisions.

Authors:  Ameer Hohlfeld; Sumayyah Ebrahim; Muhammed Zaki Shaik; Tamara Kredo
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-03-31

8.  PrePex Male Circumcision: Follow-Up and Outcomes during the First Two Years of Implementation at the Rwanda Military Hospital.

Authors:  Albert Ndagijimana; Pacifique Mugenzi; Dana R Thomson; Bethany Hedt-Gauthier; Jeanine U Condo; Eugene Ngoga
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-09-23       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  The PrePex device is unlikely to achieve cost-savings compared to the forceps-guided method in male circumcision programs in sub-Saharan Africa.

Authors:  Walter Obiero; Marisa R Young; Robert C Bailey
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-01-21       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Time to complete wound healing in HIV-positive and HIV-negative men following medical male circumcision in Kisumu, Kenya: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  John H Rogers; Elijah Odoyo-June; Walter Jaoko; Robert C Bailey
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-15       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.