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...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2017-01-01
|
| Series: | Asian Journal of Andrology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.ajandrology.com/article.asp?issn=1008-682X;year=2017;volume=19;issue=3;spage=362;epage=367;aulast=Huo |
| _version_ | 1819087127099473920 |
|---|---|
| author | Zhong-Chao Huo Gang Liu Xiao-Yan Li Fei Liu Wen-Ju Fan Ru-Hua Guan Pei-Feng Li De-Yang Mo Yong-Zhi He |
| author_facet | Zhong-Chao Huo Gang Liu Xiao-Yan Li Fei Liu Wen-Ju Fan Ru-Hua Guan Pei-Feng Li De-Yang Mo Yong-Zhi He |
| author_sort | Zhong-Chao Huo |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-21T21:31:12Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-784d64724e6c4fc7ad611dc4599a9154 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1008-682X 1745-7262 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-21T21:31:12Z |
| publishDate | 2017-01-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Asian Journal of Andrology |
| spelling | doaj.art-784d64724e6c4fc7ad611dc4599a91542022-12-21T18:49:37ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsAsian Journal of Andrology1008-682X1745-72622017-01-0119336236710.4103/1008-682X.174855Use of a disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision: a systematic review and meta-analysisZhong-Chao HuoGang LiuXiao-Yan LiFei LiuWen-Ju FanRu-Hua GuanPei-Feng LiDe-Yang MoYong-Zhi HeThis 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.http://www.ajandrology.com/article.asp?issn=1008-682X;year=2017;volume=19;issue=3;spage=362;epage=367;aulast=Huoconventional circumcision; disposable circumcision suture device; meta-analysis; phimosis; redundant prepuce; systematic review |
| spellingShingle | Zhong-Chao Huo Gang Liu Xiao-Yan Li Fei Liu Wen-Ju Fan Ru-Hua Guan Pei-Feng Li De-Yang Mo Yong-Zhi He Use of a disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision: a systematic review and meta-analysis Asian Journal of Andrology conventional circumcision; disposable circumcision suture device; meta-analysis; phimosis; redundant prepuce; systematic review |
| title | Use of a disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| title_full | Use of a disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| title_fullStr | Use of a disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Use of a disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| title_short | Use of a disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
| title_sort | use of a disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision a systematic review and meta analysis |
| topic | conventional circumcision; disposable circumcision suture device; meta-analysis; phimosis; redundant prepuce; systematic review |
| url | http://www.ajandrology.com/article.asp?issn=1008-682X;year=2017;volume=19;issue=3;spage=362;epage=367;aulast=Huo |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT zhongchaohuo useofadisposablecircumcisionsuturedeviceversusconventionalcircumcisionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT gangliu useofadisposablecircumcisionsuturedeviceversusconventionalcircumcisionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT xiaoyanli useofadisposablecircumcisionsuturedeviceversusconventionalcircumcisionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT feiliu useofadisposablecircumcisionsuturedeviceversusconventionalcircumcisionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT wenjufan useofadisposablecircumcisionsuturedeviceversusconventionalcircumcisionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT ruhuaguan useofadisposablecircumcisionsuturedeviceversusconventionalcircumcisionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT peifengli useofadisposablecircumcisionsuturedeviceversusconventionalcircumcisionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT deyangmo useofadisposablecircumcisionsuturedeviceversusconventionalcircumcisionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT yongzhihe useofadisposablecircumcisionsuturedeviceversusconventionalcircumcisionasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |