Comparison of ring instruments and classic circumcision methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 1.3 Q3 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Arab Journal of Urology Pub Date : 2022-05-23 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1080/2090598X.2022.2071545
Yavuz Güler, Gökhun Çağdaş Özmerdiven, Akif Erbin
{"title":"Comparison of ring instruments and classic circumcision methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Yavuz Güler,&nbsp;Gökhun Çağdaş Özmerdiven,&nbsp;Akif Erbin","doi":"10.1080/2090598X.2022.2071545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine the advantages and disadvantages of both methods by comparing classic circumcision methods with circumcision methods assisted by ring instruments.</p><p><strong>Material-methods: </strong>Only studies that compared open procedures and ring devices for male circumcision were included. A total of 6226 patients were examined in 14 studies. The methodological quality of RCT was evaluated using Cochrane collaboration's tools. The Review Manager software statistical package was used to analyze the ORs for dichotomous variables and the mean differences for continuous variables. The proportion of heterogeneity across the studies was tested using the I 2 index. Potential publication bias was assessed by identifying the presence of visual asymmetry/symmetry with funnel plot studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 1812 patients in the open circumcision group and 4414 patients in the ring groups. In total, there was no difference identified between the groups. The open procedure had an advantage compared to the Plastibell subgroup for hemorrhage, while in the other two subgroups, the ring instrument groups had the advantage. Statistically significant in favor of ring devices was found in operating time.There was no difference between the groups for early (postoperative) pain scores. For late-period pain scores, differences with statistical significance were identified in favor of ring devices both in subgroups and in total. For satisfaction, apart from one study in the PrePex group, statistical significance was obtained in favor of ring devices for the other subgroups and in total.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The main factors in favor of the use of ring instruments for circumcision are the short total surgical duration, not requiring advanced surgical experience, ease of learning and application, and patient relative satisfaction rates. However, it is a condition to know open circumcision methods and to have experience of this surgery for use in situations with hemorrhage complications, mainly, and without ring instruments of appropriate size.</p>","PeriodicalId":8113,"journal":{"name":"Arab Journal of Urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9354637/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arab Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2022.2071545","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Aim: To determine the advantages and disadvantages of both methods by comparing classic circumcision methods with circumcision methods assisted by ring instruments.

Material-methods: Only studies that compared open procedures and ring devices for male circumcision were included. A total of 6226 patients were examined in 14 studies. The methodological quality of RCT was evaluated using Cochrane collaboration's tools. The Review Manager software statistical package was used to analyze the ORs for dichotomous variables and the mean differences for continuous variables. The proportion of heterogeneity across the studies was tested using the I 2 index. Potential publication bias was assessed by identifying the presence of visual asymmetry/symmetry with funnel plot studies.

Results: There were 1812 patients in the open circumcision group and 4414 patients in the ring groups. In total, there was no difference identified between the groups. The open procedure had an advantage compared to the Plastibell subgroup for hemorrhage, while in the other two subgroups, the ring instrument groups had the advantage. Statistically significant in favor of ring devices was found in operating time.There was no difference between the groups for early (postoperative) pain scores. For late-period pain scores, differences with statistical significance were identified in favor of ring devices both in subgroups and in total. For satisfaction, apart from one study in the PrePex group, statistical significance was obtained in favor of ring devices for the other subgroups and in total.

Conclusion: The main factors in favor of the use of ring instruments for circumcision are the short total surgical duration, not requiring advanced surgical experience, ease of learning and application, and patient relative satisfaction rates. However, it is a condition to know open circumcision methods and to have experience of this surgery for use in situations with hemorrhage complications, mainly, and without ring instruments of appropriate size.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

环形器械与经典包皮环切方法的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:通过对经典包皮环切方法与环器辅助包皮环切方法的比较,确定两种方法的优缺点。材料方法:仅包括比较开放手术和环环装置的研究。14项研究共检查了6226例患者。RCT的方法学质量使用Cochrane协作工具进行评估。使用Review Manager软件统计软件包分析二分类变量的or和连续变量的均值差异。采用i2指数对各研究的异质性比例进行检验。通过漏斗图研究确定视觉不对称/对称的存在来评估潜在的发表偏倚。结果:开腹环切组1812例,环切组4414例。总的来说,两组之间没有发现差异。与Plastibell亚组相比,开放手术在出血方面具有优势,而在其他两个亚组中,环形器械组具有优势。在手术时间上,有统计学意义的环形装置。两组早期(术后)疼痛评分无差异。对于后期疼痛评分,无论是在亚组还是在总体上,都发现了有利于环形装置的差异具有统计学意义。对于满意度,除了PrePex组的一项研究外,其他亚组和总体上都获得了支持环装置的统计学意义。结论:环形器械在包皮环切术中使用的主要因素是手术总时间短,不需要高级手术经验,易于学习和使用,患者相对满意度高。然而,这是一个条件,了解开放包皮环切术的方法,并有这种手术的经验,用于出血并发症的情况下,主要是,没有适当大小的环器械。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Arab Journal of Urology
Arab Journal of Urology UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
期刊介绍: The Arab Journal of Urology is a peer-reviewed journal that strives to provide a high standard of research and clinical material to the widest possible urological community worldwide. The journal encompasses all aspects of urology including: urological oncology, urological reconstructive surgery, urodynamics, female urology, pediatric urology, endourology, transplantation, erectile dysfunction, and urinary infections and inflammations. The journal provides reviews, original articles, editorials, surgical techniques, cases reports and correspondence. Urologists, oncologists, pathologists, radiologists and scientists are invited to submit their contributions to make the Arab Journal of Urology a viable international forum for the practical, timely and state-of-the-art clinical urology and basic urological research.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信