Chuiguo Huang1, Pan Song2, Changbao Xu3, Ruofan Wang3, Lei Wei3, Xinghua Zhao3. 1. Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China. Electronic address: huangcg0727@163.com. 2. Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China. 3. Department of Urology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Phimosis and redundant prepuce are defined as the inability of the foreskin to be retracted behind the glans penis in uncircumcised males. To synthesize the evidence and provide the hierarchies of different circumcisions for phimosis and redundant prepuce, we performed an overall network meta-analysis (NMA) based on their comparative efficacy and safety. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Wan Fang, VIP, CNKI and CBM database were researched from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for redundant prepuce or phimosis. We conducted the direct and indirect comparisons by aggregate data drug information system (ADDIS) software. Moreover, consistency models were applied to assess the differences among the male circumcision practices, and the ranks based on probabilities of intervention for the different endpoints were performed. Node-splitting analysis was used to test inconsistency. RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs were included with 6179 participants. Compared with the conventional circumcision(CC), two new styles of circumcisions, the disposable circumcision suture device(DCSD) and Shang Ring circumcision(SRC), provided significantly shorter operation time[DCSD: standardized mean difference (SMD) = -20.60, 95% credible interval(CI) (-23.38, -17.82); SRC: SMD = -19.16, 95%CI (-21.86, -16.52)], shorter wound healing time [DCSD:SMD = -4.19, 95%CI (-8.24,-0.04); SRC: SMD = 4.55, 95%CI (1.62, 7.57); ] and better postoperative penile appearance [DCSD: odds ratios odds ratios (OR) = 11.42, 95%CI (3.60, 37.68); SRC: OR = 3.85,95%CI (1.29, 12.79)]. Additionally, DCSD showed a lower adverse events rate than other two treatments. However, no significant difference was shown in all surgeries for 24 h postoperative pain score. Node-splitting analysis showed that no significant inconsistency was existed (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of NMA, DCSD may be a most effective and safest choice for phimosis and redundant prepuce. DCSD has the advantages of a shorter operation time, better postoperative penile appearance, fewer complication and shorter wound healing time. However, with the limitations of our study, additional multi-center RCTs are needed to evaluate the outcomes.
BACKGROUND:Phimosis and redundant prepuce are defined as the inability of the foreskin to be retracted behind the glans penis in uncircumcised males. To synthesize the evidence and provide the hierarchies of different circumcisions for phimosis and redundant prepuce, we performed an overall network meta-analysis (NMA) based on their comparative efficacy and safety. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Wan Fang, VIP, CNKI and CBM database were researched from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for redundant prepuce or phimosis. We conducted the direct and indirect comparisons by aggregate data drug information system (ADDIS) software. Moreover, consistency models were applied to assess the differences among the male circumcision practices, and the ranks based on probabilities of intervention for the different endpoints were performed. Node-splitting analysis was used to test inconsistency. RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs were included with 6179 participants. Compared with the conventional circumcision(CC), two new styles of circumcisions, the disposable circumcision suture device(DCSD) and Shang Ring circumcision(SRC), provided significantly shorter operation time[DCSD: standardized mean difference (SMD) = -20.60, 95% credible interval(CI) (-23.38, -17.82); SRC: SMD = -19.16, 95%CI (-21.86, -16.52)], shorter wound healing time [DCSD:SMD = -4.19, 95%CI (-8.24,-0.04); SRC: SMD = 4.55, 95%CI (1.62, 7.57); ] and better postoperative penile appearance [DCSD: odds ratios odds ratios (OR) = 11.42, 95%CI (3.60, 37.68); SRC: OR = 3.85,95%CI (1.29, 12.79)]. Additionally, DCSD showed a lower adverse events rate than other two treatments. However, no significant difference was shown in all surgeries for 24 h postoperative pain score. Node-splitting analysis showed that no significant inconsistency was existed (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of NMA, DCSD may be a most effective and safest choice for phimosis and redundant prepuce. DCSD has the advantages of a shorter operation time, better postoperative penile appearance, fewer complication and shorter wound healing time. However, with the limitations of our study, additional multi-center RCTs are needed to evaluate the outcomes.