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

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.

[Clinical effect of circumcision stapler in the treatment of phimosis and redundant prepuce].

OBJECTIVE: To observe the clinical effect and safety of circumcision stapler in the treatment of phimosis and redundant prepuce. METHODS: We treated 120 patients with redundant prepuce or phimosis using circumcision stapler and another 60 by conventional dorsal-incision circumcision. We observed intraoperative blood loss, operation time, postoperative pain, wound healing time, cosmetic appearance of the penis, and postoperative complications and compared them between the two groups of patients. RESULTS: Stapler circumcision showed obvious advantages over the conventional method in intraoperative blood loss ([2. 3 ± 1. 3] vs [15.6 ± 2.9] ml), operation time ([7.1 ± 1.4] vs [22.6 ± 4.6] min), wound healing time ([12.0 ± 2.9] as [16.3 ± 3. 1] d), postoperative pain score (1. 9 ± 1. 3 vs 5. 2 ± 1. 7), incision edema, and cosmetic appearance of the penis (all P <0. 05). Besides, stapler circumcision exempted the patients from stitch-removal pain. However, the incidence rate of postoperative local ecchymosis was significantly higher in the circumcision stapler group than in the conventional circumcision group (20. 8% vs 8. 3% , P <0. 05). CONCLUSION: Circumcision stapler, with its advantages of easier manipulation, shorter operation time, better cosmetic penile appearance, less pain, and fewer complications, is superior to conventional circumcision in the treatment of phimosis and redundant prepuce.