Pediatric Surgery International

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 45–48 | Cite as

A unique service in UK delivering Plastibell® circumcision: review of 9-year results

  • Victor Palit
  • David K. Menebhi
  • Ian Taylor
  • Margaret Young
  • Yasser Elmasry
  • Tariq Shah
Original Article

Abstract

Muslim infants undergo circumcision for religious reasons and Bradford has a high Muslim population. The National Health Service in UK does not provide religious circumcision, so in 1996 a nurse-delivered circumcision service led by consultant urologists was set up at a no-profit and cost-only basis. Plastibell circumcision was offered to all infants between 6 and 14 weeks old and performed under local anaesthesia. Information leaflets and videotapes about the procedure were available to parents prior to the procedure. A three monthly audit of the service was undertaken. Between July 1996 and June 2005 (9 years) 1,129 circumcisions were performed. The common complications were problems with the ring (3.6%) and bleeding (3%). Overall, there was 96% satisfaction rate among the service users. The Plastibell technique for circumcision is a simple method and can be safely performed by trained nurses with acceptable complication rates.

Keywords

Plastibell® Circumcision Infant Local anaesthesia Nurse performed 

References

  1. 1.
    De Meo J (1989) The geography of genital mutilations. The Truth Seeker, pp 9–13 (Link to www.noharmm.org)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Niku SD, Stock JA, Kaplan GW (1995) Neonatal circumcision. Urol Clin N Am 22:57–65Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shah T, Raistrick J, Taylor I, Young M, Menebhi D, Stevens R (1999) A circumcision for religious reasons. BJU Int 83(7):807–809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Williams N, Kapila L (1993) Why are infants referred for circumcision? Br Med J 28:306Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Poland RL (1990) The question of routine neonatal circumcision. N Engl J Med 322:1312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaplan GW (1983) Complications of circumcision. Urol Clin N Am 10:543–549Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Upadhyay V, Hammodat HM, Pease PW (1998) Post-circumcision meatal stenosis. 12 years experience. NZ Med J 111:57–58Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Manji PK (2000) Circumcision of the young infant in a developing country using the plastibell. Ann Trop Paediatr 20:101–104PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fraser IA, Allen MJ, Bagshaw PF, Johnstone M (1981) A randomised trial to assess childhood circumcision with the Plastibell device compared to conventional dissection technique: Br J Surg 68(8):593–595PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Duncan ND, Dundas SE, Brown B, Pinnock-Ramasaran C, Badal G (2004) Newborn circumcision using the plastibell device: an audit of practice. West Indian Med J 53(1):23–26PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Al-Samaraai AY, Mofti AB, Crankson SJ, Jawad A, Haque K, Al-Meshari A (1988) A review of a Plastibell device in neonatal circumcision in 2,000 instances. Surg Gynecol Obstet 167(4):341–343 (Review)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gelbaum I (1992) Circumcision. To educate, not indoctrinate. J Nurse Midwives 37:97–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victor Palit
    • 1
  • David K. Menebhi
    • 2
  • Ian Taylor
    • 2
  • Margaret Young
    • 2
  • Yasser Elmasry
    • 2
  • Tariq Shah
    • 2
  1. 1.Yorkshire DeaneryLancashireUK
  2. 2.Bradford Royal InfirmaryBradfordUK

Personalised recommendations