ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Ahead of Print

Use of a disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision: a systematic review and meta-analysis


1 Department of Urology, People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning 530021, Guangxi; Graduate School, Guangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanning 530200, Guangxi, China
2 Department of Urology, People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning 530021, Guangxi, China
3 Department of Operating Room, People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning 530021, Guangxi, China
4 Research Center of Medical Sciences, The People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning 530021, Guangxi, China
5 Graduate School, North China University of Science and Technology, Tangshan 063000, Hebei, China

Correspondence Address:
Gang Liu,
Department of Urology, People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, Nanning 530021, Guangxi
China
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

This systematic review assessed the safety and efficacy of the disposable circumcision suture device (DCSD) and conventional circumcision (CC) in the treatment of redundant prepuce and phimosis. Two independent reviewers conducted a literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using the DCSD and CC for the treatment of redundant prepuce or phimosis in China and abroad. Nine RCTs (1898 cases) were included. Compared with the CC group, the DCSD group had a shorter operative time (standardized mean difference [SMD] = −21.44; 95% confidence intervals [95% CIs] [−25.08, −17.79]; P < 0.00001), shorter wound healing time (SMD = −3.66; 95% CI [−5.46, −1.85]; P < 0.0001), less intraoperative blood loss (SMD = −9.64; 95% CI [−11.37, −7.90]; P < 0.00001), better cosmetic penile appearance (odds ratio [OR] =8.77; 95% CI [5.90, 13.02]; P < 0.00001), lower intraoperative pain score, lower 24-h postoperative pain score, lower incidence of infection, less incision edema, and fewer adverse events. There were no differences between the CC and DCSD groups in the incidences of dehiscence, or hematoma. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that the DCSD appears to be safer and more effective than CC. However, additional high-quality RCTs with larger study populations are needed.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]
Print this article
Search
 Back
 
  Search Pubmed for
 
    -  Huo ZC
    -  Liu G
    -  Li XY
    -  Liu F
    -  Fan WJ
    -  Guan RH
    -  Li PF
    -  Mo DY
    -  He YZ
 Citation Manager
 Article Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed986    
    PDF Downloaded100    

Recommend this journal