Circumcision with "no-flip Shang Ring" and "Dorsal Slit" methods for adult males: a single-centered, prospective, clinical study

Lei, Junhao; Liu, Liang-Ren; Wang, Qiang; Xue, Wen-Ben; Song, Ting; Yan, Shibing; Yang, Lu; Han, Ping; Zhu, Ye

doi:10.4103/1008-682x.157544

Cited by 12 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the glans becomes visible after this application, it is generally not preferred alone because a good cosmetic result is not obtained and continues with the foreskin excision. Similar situation made from ventral face also applies to the operation [13].…”

Section: Dorsal-ventral Slit Techniquementioning

confidence: 79%

Management of Post-Circumcision Glans/Penile Necrosis

Arikan¹,

Ayten²

2022

Male Reproductive Anatomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Circumcision is the surgical removal of the skin covering the glans and is one of the oldest and most common surgical procedures in the world. Although there is evidence that the first circumcision was performed in Egypt in 4000 BC, according to some anthropologists, it dates back to the 10th millennium BC. The purpose of medical circumcision is to obtain enough foreskin to expose the glans penis and to prevent medical problems caused by the foreskin. Although it is known that the complications arising from these procedures are not well documented, the complication rates in the literature vary between 1 and 15%, when evaluated according to age, the rate of post-circumcision complications in newborns is reported to be approximately 0.2-0.6% and this rate is 10 times higher between the ages of 1-9. Various complications such as bleeding, infection, incomplete and insufficient circumcision, hematoma, penile adhesion, urinary retention, glanular injury, necrosis and urethral narrowing have been reported. In this book section, one of the complications, penile necrosis, will be explained in the light of the literature.

show abstract

Section: Dorsal-ventral Slit Techniquementioning

confidence: 79%

Management of Post-Circumcision Glans/Penile Necrosis

Arikan¹,

Ayten²

2022

Male Reproductive Anatomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Sixteen publications, published between 2011 and 2023, from a total of 2347 connected investigations that met the inclusion criteria were chosen for the investigation. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] The results of these research studies are presented in Table 2. A total of 5838 individuals with circumcision were in the chosen investigations' starting point, 3252 of them were RC, and 2586 were CC.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wound healing rates and wound problems of conventional circumcision compared with ring circumcision: A meta‐analysis

Wang

Chen

et al. 2023

International Wound Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A meta‐analysis investigation was executed to measure the wound healing rates (WHRs) and wound problems (WPs) of conventional circumcision (CC) compared with ring circumcision (RC). A comprehensive literature investigation till March 2023 was applied and 2347 interrelated investigations were reviewed. The 16 chosen investigations enclosed 25 838 individuals, with circumcision, were in the chosen investigations' starting point, 3252 of them were RC, and 2586 were CC. Odds ratio (OR) in addition to 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compute the value of the WHRs and WPs of CC compared with RC by the dichotomous or continuous approaches and a fixed or random model. RC had a significantly lower wound infection rate (WIR) (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37‐0.91, P = .002) and wound bleeding rate (WBR) (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.12‐0.42, P < .001) compared with those with CC. However, RC and CC had no significant difference in WHR (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, −0.73 to 5.09, P = .14), wound edema rate (WER) (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.92‐1.33, P = .28), and wound dehiscence rate (WDR) (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.60‐1.58, P = .93). RC had significantly lower WIR, and WBR, however, no significant difference in WHR, WER, and WDR compared with those with CC. However, care must be exercised when dealing with its values because of the low sample size of some of the nominated investigations for the meta‐analysis.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, they are easy to learn and perform. Less cosmetic satisfaction was noted using the dorsal slit method because of lack of symmetrical foreskin cutting [10].…”

Section: Comparable Overview Of Various Techniques Used In Circumcisionmentioning

confidence: 99%