International Urology and Nephrology

, Volume 40, Issue 2, pp 377–381

Circumcision with a new disposable clamp: Is it really easier and more reliable?

Original Article
  • 74 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the results of a new disposable clamp (SCD) used for routine circumcision in our department, compared with the conventional dissection tecnique (CDT) in infants and children.

Methods

The SCD and CDT were evaluated prospectively, in terms of the duration, complication rate and postoperative pain assesment. The cosmetic result and parents' satisfaction were evaluated after 6 weeks. A total of 200 boys were included in the study (with a median age of 4.45 years).

Results and conclusions

The median operative duration was 10 min less for the SCD (18 vs 8 min; P < 0.001). There was no difference in complication rates for both groups. The cosmetic results assessed by a blinded urologist were better for the SCD group (P < 0.001). The parents' satisfaction score for the procedure was similar in both groups, as 8 out of a scale up to 10 filled in by the parents. Circumcision with the SCD is quicker and leads to a better cosmetic results than with the CDT, without increasing morbidity.

Keywords

Circumcision Clamp Morbidity Cosmetic result Patient satisfaction 

Abbreviations

SCD

Smart Clamp Device

CDT

Conventional dissection technique

IQR

Interquartile range

References

  1. 1.
    Waszak SJ (1978) The historic significance of circumcision. Obstet Gynecol 51:499–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Andrasik F, Burke EJ, Attanasio V, Rosenblum EL (1985) Child parent, and physician reports of a child’s headache pain: relationships prior and following treatment. Headache 25:421–425PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Linssen AC, Spinhoven P (1991) Pain measurment in clinical practice. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 135:557–560PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Singer AJ, Thode HC Jr (1998) Determination of the minimal clinically significant difference on a patient visual analog satisfaction scale. Acad Emerg Med 10:1007–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grossman E, Posner NA (1981) Surgical circumcision of neonates: a history of its development. Obstet Gynecol 58:241–246PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Holman JR, Lewis EL, Ringler RL (1995) Neonatal circumcision techniques. Am Fam Physician 52:511–520PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fraser IA, Allen MJ, Bagshaw PF, Johnstone M (1981) A randomised trial to assess childhood circumcision with the Plastibell device compared to a conventional dissection technique. Br J Surg 68:593–595PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Özdemir E (1995) A review of circumcision from Turkey. Hamdard Med 38:69–86Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leitch IO (1970) Circumcision a continuing enigma. Aust Pediatr J 6:59–65Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    MacCarthy D, Douglas JW, Mogford C (1952) Circumcision in a national sample of 4 year old children. Br Med J 2:755–756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of UrologyAtatürk Teaching and Research HospitalAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of UrologyDışkapı Teaching and Research HospitalAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.AnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations