| Literature DB >> 29492070 |
Ahmet Ali Tuncer1, Elif Emel Ayar Erten2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In this study, thermocautery, plastic clamping, and conventional (open surgical) circumcision techniques were compared in terms of their complications.Entities:
Keywords: Circumcision; Clamp; Complication; Pediatric; Thermocautery
Year: 2017 PMID: 29492070 PMCID: PMC5768836 DOI: 10.12669/pjms.336.13640
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pak J Med Sci ISSN: 1681-715X Impact factor: 1.088
Fig. 1Thermocautery device.
Fig.2Circumcision with thermocautery technique. a, b)The foreskin was pulled up with the clamps, and the outer skin and mucosa were cut using a thermocautery device. c) Cauterization of dorsal vein; no bleeding was seen in the incision line after cutting the skin and mucosa. d) Postoperative appearance of the penis.
Fig.3Complications. a) Alisklamp complication showing scrotal injury due to extensive cutting of the preputium with a scalpel after clamping. Arrow: circumcision line after the clamp removal. Dashed arrow: scrotal injury. b) Arrow: meatitis developed three months after the thermocautery application. c) Trapped penis after the open surgery technique. The same complication also developed after the Alisklamp and thermocautery techniques. Arrow: trapped glans. Dashed arrow: narrowing preputium in front of the glans penis.
The complication rates according to the circumcision techniques.
| Perioperative Early postoperative | Scrotal injury (n=1) Bleeding (n=11) | 1 | 1 2 | 8 |
| Infection (n=2) | 1 | 1 | ||
| Late postoperative | Buried penis/Secondary phimosis (n=6) | 1 | 4 | 1 |
| Meatitis (n=1) | 1 | |||
| P for chi-squared test | PT-PC:0.001 | PT-PS:0.048 | ||
PT: P for thermocautery, PC: P for clamp, PS: P for classical surgery.