nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.12.2023 | Original Article

Comparative analysis on the outcomes in circumcising children using modified Chinese ShangRing and conventional surgical circumcision

verfasst von: Qingde Zhang, Lijuan Gao, Dianyong Liu, Guiyun Song, Peng Gao, Shuai Zhang, Jing Zhang, Yakun Xu, Dongdong Han, Yan Xu

Erschienen in: Pediatric Surgery International | Ausgabe 1/2023

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objective

To compare the differences and outcomes of surgical procedures, clinical effect, complications and patients’ satisfaction between disposable oval-shaped circumcision device (Modified Chinese ShangRing series, Kiddie love^®) and conventional circumcision in the treatment of children with phimosis or redundant prepuce.

Methods

The clinical data were retrospectively analyzed in 114 children with phimosis or redundant foreskin undergone circumcision using a disposable oval-shaped circumcision device, a modified Chinese ShangRing series, Kiddie Love^® (Kiddie Love group) in our hospital between January 2018 and February 2020, and another 114 children with similar conditions circumcised by conventional surgical procedure before January 2018 (conventional group). The two groups were compared regarding the operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pain scores, healing time, the incidence of complications and guardian’s satisfaction.

Results

Circumcision was successfully completed in children in both groups. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pain scoring in 24 h by VAS, pain at the removal of the device or stitches and wound healing were (6.4 ± 1.6) min, (34.1 ± 6.4) min; (0.7 ± 0.2) ml, (2.6 ± 0.6) ml; (2.2 ± 1.0) points, (1.3 ± 0.5) points; (23.7 ± 3.9)day, (15.9 ± 2.8)day, respectively for Kiddie Love group and conventional group(either P < 0.05 or P > 0.05). The two groups were significantly different in the incidence of hematoma, edema and incision dehiscenceyet were insignificant in incision infection. Children in both groups were followed up from 6 to 31 months (mean: 23 months), and the satisfaction rate was 94.7% (108/114) in parents of the children circumcised by the ShangRing and 83.3% (95/114) in those of children treated by conventional circumcision (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Modified Chinese ShangRing, Kiddie Love^®, has superiorities, including simpler procedure, shorter operative time, less blood loss, fewer complications, better cosmetic results and higher satisfaction of patients over conventional circumcision in the treatment of children with phimosis or redundant foreskin, and worthy of wider clinical recommendation.

Dongjun L, Kangning Q, Huiqing K (2018) Comparison between disposable circumcision anastomosis device and traditional surgery [J]. Chin Health Care Nutr (Article in Chinese) 28(6):50

Morris BJ, Wiswell TE (2013) Circumcision and lifetime risk of urinary tract infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. J Urol 189(6):2118–2124CrossRefPubMed

Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB et al (2007) Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men inkisumu, Kenya: a randomized controlled trial Lancet [J]. Natl J Androl 228(9):643–656

Morris BJ, Wamai RG (2012) Biological basis for the protective effect conferred by male circumcision against HIV infection. Int J STD AIDS 23:153CrossRefPubMed

Wei H, Shengli M, Zhanlin Y, Ling M, Hanyan L, Liquan H (2013) Detection of herpes simplex virus type 2 and human papillomavirus in foreskin [J]. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese) 9(1):70–71

Kun-long B, Jian-chun X, Lin L, Nian-qing L, Yue C, Jian T et al (2009) Male circumcision is an effective “surgical vaccine” for HIV prevention and reproductive health. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese) 15(5):395–402

Lu N, Li PS, Huang Y-R (2008) An innovative male circumcision technique in china and HIV prevention [J]. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese). 14(3):195–199

Farley T (2009) Evidence on male circumcision and prevention of HIV and other STIs. The Proceedings of the Third Asia-Pacific Forum on Andrology. 10–13 October 2009, Nanjing, China. Asian J Androl.11( 5): S1: 34–35

Schoen EJ, Oehrli M, Collby CD, Machin G (2000) The highly protective effect of newborn circumcision against invasive penile cancer. Pediatrics 105(3):E36CrossRefPubMed

10.

Nian-qing L, Li PS, Sokal D, Yue C, Yi-feng P, Barone M et al (2011) Progress in the clinical studies of male circumcision using the Shang Ring. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese) 17(3):195–202

11.

Taiyang L, Xiuhua W, Hui Z, Yong Z, Zihao H, Zhigang F et al (2014) Chinese ShangRing circumcision for phimosis or redundant prepuce: a meta-analysis. The Chinese Journal of Human Sexuality (Article in Chinese) 23(11):11–15

12.

Min MA, Haixiao WU (2017) A comparative analysis of the new type of circumcision and traditional circumcision in the treatment of redundant foreskin (article in Chinese). Chin J Hum Sex 26(7):30–32

13.

Feldblum PJ, Okech J, Ochieng R et al (2015) Longer-term follow-up of kenyan men circumcised using the ShangRing device [J]. PLoS ONE 10(9):e0137510CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Odoyo-June E, Owuor N, Kassim S et al (2019) Rollout of ShangRing circumcision with active surveillance for adverse events and monitoring for uptake in Kenya [J]. PLoS ONE 14(9):e0222942CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Masson P, Li PS, Barone MA et al (2010) The ShangRing device for simplified adult circumcision [J]. Nat Rev Urol 7(11):638CrossRefPubMed

16.

Aiping L, Kerong W, Yue C, Guoyao W (2018) Comparison of Chinese ShangRing and circumcision stapler in children’s circumcision [J]. Chin J Androl (Article in Chinese) 32(5):60–62

17.

Awori QD, Lee RK, Li PS, Moguche JN, Ouma D, Sambai B et al (2017) Use of the ShangRing circumcision device in boys below 18 years old in Kenya: results from a pilot study[J]. J Int AIDS Soc 20(1):1–8CrossRef

18.

Long W, Jin-rui Y (2007) Appropriate attitude about neonatal male circumcision. Med Philos (Clin Decision Making Forum Ed) (Article in Chinese). 28(1):28–29

19.

Ran M, Wenxue S, Chenchen Z, Xinguo J, Liang L, Yu-ying C, Bo Z (2015) Comparative study of the application of disposable circumcision suture device, conventional circumcision and circumcision anastomosis (article in Chinese). Chin J Hum Sex 24(6):24–26

20.

Li Huining Xu, Liming JQ (2010) Comparison of the curative effect between Chinese ShangRing and traditional surgery in male circumcision[J]. Natl J Androl 16(4):325–327

21.

Xinhua L, Shaobin Z (2011) Experience in treating redundant foreskin and phimosis in children using Chinese ShangRing [J]. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese) 17(6):542–545

22.

Huang C, Song P, Xu C et al (2017) Comparative efficacy and safety of different circumcisions for patients with redundant prepuce or phimosis: a network meta-analysis[J]. Int J Surg 43:17–25CrossRefPubMed

23.

Yong S, Junsheng X, Zhengjian L, Yong Z, Minyang W (2018) Clinical effect analysis of Shang Ring, conventional circumcision, and disposable circumcision suture device in the treatment ofredundant prepuce and phimosis [J]. Chin J Androl (Article in Chinese) 32(05):55–59

24.

Changyin Z, Jinghui C, Zhongjie T et al (2018) Efficiency and safety of circumcision suture device, ShangRing and traditional circumcision in the treatmentof prepuce or phimosis [J]. Chin J Hum Sex (Article in Chinese) 27(04):5–9

25.

January (2013) WHO technical advisory group on innovations in male circumcision: evaluation of two adult devices [J]. World Health Organization

26.

Furan W (2013) Observation on the curative effect of circumcision in children (report of 211 cases) [J]. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese) 03:278–281

27.

Hai Y, Bing Y, Kun Z et al (2011) Comparison of the effects of two different methods of circumcision [J]. Chin Commun Dr Med Field (Article in Chinese) 13(14):113

28.

Fuxing X, Fucai W, Zanbing X (2018) Comparative study on the clinical efficacy of ShangRing circumcision device and disposable circumcision stapler [J]. Chin Med Pharm (Article in Chinese) 008(001):223–226

29.

Weihong W, Botao J, Wei Z (2013) Comparison of the application of the ShangRing and traditional circumcision to the treatment of children with redundant prepuce and phimosis [J]. Natl Med Front China (Article in Chinese) 008(008):54–54

30.

Hezhen C, Yimin X, Weimin Z et al (2019) Outcomes of a round type of disposable circumcision device in preschool children [J]. Clin Med Res Pract (Article in Chinese) 004(017):93–94

31.

Cao D, Liu L, Hu Y et al (2015) A systematic review and meta-analysis of circumcision with shangring vs conventional circumcision [J]. Urology 85(4):799–804CrossRefPubMed

32.

Yue C, Zejun Y, Xinjun S, Haiwei F, Jiasheng H, Kerong W, Rui S, Jianwei M (2011) A Clinical comparative study of Chinese Shang Ring circumcision versus conventional circumcision [J]. Chin J Urol (Article in Chinese) 05:333–335

33.

Ben-hai Y, Chao J, Tao L, Yi-feng P (2014) Novel no-flip ShangRing circumcision for adult males: a clinical application study of 528 cases [J]. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese) 20(8):709–714

34.

Wei Q, Liang L, Feng L (2016) Operation standardization and complication control of “Shang ring” circumcision in the treatment of phimosis in children (report of 306 cases) [J]. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese) 22(004):369–372

35.

Shouju C, Tong T, Guanjun L (2014) Clinical application of improved ShangRing device for circumcision of children [J]. Chin J Postgrad Med (Article in Chinese) 37(2):70–71

36.

Yitian G, Bin X, Ming C et al (2017) Chinese parents’ attitudes toward and theirsatisfaction with circumcision for 6–14 years old children [J]. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese) 04(v.23):32–35

37.

Bai Bing (2019) Comparison between disposable circumcision stapler and ShangRing in the treatment of redundant prepuce and phimosis [J]. Clinical Medicine (Article in Chinese). (6)

38.

Wei Q, Ting L, Xining J (2019) Comparison of therapeutic effects of two circumcision instruments on phimosis in children [J]. J Clin Urol (Article in Chinese) 34(8):647–650

39.

Cheng Y, Wu K, Yan Z et al (2012) How to choose appropriate ring size for Shang Ring male circumcision [J]. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 61(5):606–609CrossRefPubMed

40.

Feng D, Zhu X, Li Y et al (2019) Application of disposable oval circumcision anastomat in pediatric urology. Natl Med J China 02:124–128

41.

Yan B, You H, Zhang K, Tang H, Mao W, He G et al (2010) Circumcision with the Chinese ShangRing in children: outcomes of 824 cases. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese) 16(3):250–253

Titel: Comparative analysis on the outcomes in circumcising children using modified Chinese ShangRing and conventional surgical circumcision
verfasst von: Qingde Zhang
Lijuan Gao
Dianyong Liu
Guiyun Song
Peng Gao
Shuai Zhang
Jing Zhang
Yakun Xu
Dongdong Han
Yan Xu
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2023
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Pediatric Surgery International / Ausgabe 1/2023
Print ISSN: 0179-0358
Elektronische ISSN: 1437-9813
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-022-05343-4

Update Pädiatrie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Comparative analysis on the outcomes in circumcising children using modified Chinese ShangRing and conventional surgical circumcision