Literature DB >> 24678353

Male circumcision performed with 8-figure non-absorbable suture technique.

Ren Chong Xi1, Yin Rui Sheng2, Wang Hong Chen1, Li Sheng1, Ji Jing Gang1, Zhou Tong1, Zhang Shan1, Yang Feng Shuo1, Zhang Zhi Gang1, Yu Guo Sheng1, Xu Jun Ling2, Guo Hong Ying1, Liu Chun Dong2, Zhu Kun Ju2.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: We analyze the outcome of circumcisions performed with 8-figure non-absorbable suture (8FNS) and assess the feasibility of using the technique in male circumcision.
METHODS: We randomly divided 317 patients who would undergo circumcision between February 2009 and January 2012 into 2 groups. Each group was subdivided into children (age range: 7 to 15 years) and adult (range: 16 to 85 years). In the experiment group (n =166), we used 8FNS and in control group (n = 151), commonly absorbable suture (CAS) were used for the circumcised wound closure. The results of 2 groups were compared. We also performed a cost analysis and a mean 6-month follow-up (range: 1-12). Chi-square and Student's t-test were used in statistical analysis. Differences were considered significant (p < 0.05).
RESULTS: No patients were required to remove their sutures postoperatively. Among them, the sutures of the 8FNS for circumcision fell off spontaneously within 9 days (6.2 ± 1.57). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in surgical duration (16.2 ± 1.73 vs. 15.8 ± 2.01) and follow-up time (6.4 ± 3.82 vs. 6.2 ± 2.39). The overall complication rate of the 2 groups was 6.63% and 10.53% (p = 0.15), respectively. In addition, the complication rate among the adults was significantly lower in the 8FNS group compared to children (2.53% vs. 10.34%, p = 0.04). Also, the average cost (in US dollars) of 8FNS for circumcision was $20.7 ± $3.83 less than $35.8 ± $5.02 of CAS, which is a very significant difference (p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: 8FNS for circumcision is feasible, easy, safe and cost-effective, especially for adult males.

Entities:  

Year:  2014        PMID: 24678353      PMCID: PMC3956833          DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.1521

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J        ISSN: 1911-6470            Impact factor:   1.862


  13 in total

Review 1.  Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world's oldest and most controversial operation.

Authors:  Mark C Alanis; Richard S Lucidi
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol Surv       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.347

2.  Tissue reaction and surface morphology of absorbable sutures after in vivo exposure.

Authors:  Miguel G S Andrade; Ruben Weissman; Sílvia R A Reis
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 3.896

3.  Male circumcision for HIV prevention: research implications for policy and programming. WHO/UNAIDS technical consultation, 6-8 March 2007. Conclusions and recommendations (excerpts).

Authors: 
Journal:  Reprod Health Matters       Date:  2007-05

Review 4.  Commonly used suture materials in skin surgery.

Authors:  R L Moy; A Lee; A Zalka
Journal:  Am Fam Physician       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 3.292

Review 5.  [Male circumcision is an effective "surgical vaccine" for HIV prevention and reproductive health].

Authors:  Kun-Long Ben; Jian-Chun Xu; Lin Lu; Nian-Qing Lü; Yue Cheng; Jian Tao; De-Kai Liu; Xiang-Dong Min; Xiao-Mei Cao; Philip S Li
Journal:  Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue       Date:  2009-05

6.  Dorsal penile nerves and primary premature ejaculation.

Authors:  Hai-Feng Zhang; Chun-Ying Zhang; Xing-Hua Li; Zhong-Ze Fu; Zhao-Yan Chen
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2009-12-20       Impact factor: 2.628

7.  Updated parental viewpoints on male neonatal circumcision in the United States.

Authors:  Marvin L Wang; Eric A Macklin; Erin Tracy; Hiyam Nadel; Elizabeth A Catlin
Journal:  Clin Pediatr (Phila)       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 1.168

Review 8.  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

9.  [Promoting male circumcision in China for preventing HIV infection and improving reproductive health].

Authors:  Kun-Long Ben; Jian-Chun Xu; Lin Lu; Jia-Pei Yao; Xiang-Dong Min; Wen-Yi Li; Jian Tao; Jue Wang; Jun-Jie Li; Xiao-Mei Cao
Journal:  Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue       Date:  2008-04

Review 10.  Safety and efficacy of nontherapeutic male circumcision: a systematic review.

Authors:  Caryn L Perera; Franklin H G Bridgewater; Prema Thavaneswaran; Guy J Maddern
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2010 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.166

View more
  2 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.  At what age range should children be circumcised?

Authors:  Senol Bicer; Ufuk Kuyrukluyildiz; Fethi Akyol; Murat Sahin; Orhan Binici; Didem Onk
Journal:  Iran Red Crescent Med J       Date:  2015-03-20       Impact factor: 0.611

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.