Cargando…

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

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 pati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Güler, Yavuz, Özmerdiven, Gökhun Çağdaş, Erbin, Akif
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9354637/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35935913
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2022.2071545
_version_ 1784763116501860352
author Güler, Yavuz
Özmerdiven, Gökhun Çağdaş
Erbin, Akif
author_facet Güler, Yavuz
Özmerdiven, Gökhun Çağdaş
Erbin, Akif
author_sort Güler, Yavuz
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9354637
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Taylor & Francis
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93546372022-08-06 Comparison of ring instruments and classic circumcision methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis Güler, Yavuz Özmerdiven, Gökhun Çağdaş Erbin, Akif Arab J Urol Review Article 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. Taylor & Francis 2022-05-23 /pmc/articles/PMC9354637/ /pubmed/35935913 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2022.2071545 Text en © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review Article
Güler, Yavuz
Özmerdiven, Gökhun Çağdaş
Erbin, Akif
Comparison of ring instruments and classic circumcision methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Comparison of ring instruments and classic circumcision methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Comparison of ring instruments and classic circumcision methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of ring instruments and classic circumcision methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of ring instruments and classic circumcision methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Comparison of ring instruments and classic circumcision methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort comparison of ring instruments and classic circumcision methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9354637/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35935913
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2022.2071545
work_keys_str_mv AT guleryavuz comparisonofringinstrumentsandclassiccircumcisionmethodsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ozmerdivengokhuncagdas comparisonofringinstrumentsandclassiccircumcisionmethodsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT erbinakif comparisonofringinstrumentsandclassiccircumcisionmethodsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis