Device-based circumcision: advantages, choice of device and surgical technique
https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2024-12-4-114-120
Abstract
Introduction. Circumcision is one of the most common surgical procedures for men. WHO programs aimed at reducing HIV transmission have led to the development of various circumcision devices designed to standardize surgical techniques, reduce operating time and the number of complications.
Objective. To examine available data on the efficacy and safety of different methods of device-based circumcision.
Materials & methods. The results of a search in scientific databases such as eLibrary and PubMed were analyzed using the keywords: "circumcision", "circumcision device", and "phimosis". The search was conducted without regard to date or language of publication. After reviewing the literature, 25 articles were selected that best reflect the topic of device-assisted circumcision for further analysis.
Results. Device-based circumcision can significantly reduce surgical time, regardless of the type of device used. Device-based circumcision is the safe treatment method; however, it may have a higher incidence of adverse events compared to the standard circumcision technique. The use of self-suturing devices is preferred over ring devices due to fewer complications, better cosmetic results, and greater patient satisfaction. The article is supplemented with a description of the surgical technique of various options for device-based circumcision.
Conclusion. Device-based circumcision is effective and safe treatment method on an outpatient basis, which successfully competes with conventional circumcision of the foreskin.
About the Authors
S. V. Kotov
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Pirogov Medical University); Pirogov City Clinical Hospital No. 1
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Sergey V. Kotov — Dr.Sc. (Med), Full Prof.
Moscow
Competing Interests:
None
I. S. Pavlov
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Ivan S. Pavlov.
Moscow
Competing Interests:
None
N. D. Korochkin
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University (Pirogov Medical University); Pirogov City Clinical Hospital No. 1
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Nikita D. Korochkin.
Moscow
Competing Interests:
None
E. M. Alekberov
Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
Russian Federation
Competing Interests:
Russian Federation
Emil M. Alekberov.
Moscow
Competing Interests:
None
References
1. Malone P, Steinbrecher H. Medical aspects of male circumcision. BMJ. 2007;335(7631):1206-1290. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39385.382708.AD
2. Siegfried N, Muller M, Deeks JJ, Volmink J. Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men. Cochrane Database Syst ReV. 2009;(2):CD003362. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003362.pub2
3. UNAIDS. Safe, voluntary, informed male circumcision and comprehensive HIV prevention programming: guidance for decision-makers on human rights, ethical and legal considerations. GeneVA, UNAIDS, 2007.
4. Morris BJ, Wamai RG, Henebeng EB, Tobian AA, Klausner JD, Banerjee J, Hankins CA. Estimation of country-specific and global prevalence of male circumcision. Popul Health Metr. 2016;14:4. Erratum in: Popul Health Metr. 2016;14:11. DOI: 10.1186/s12963-016-0073-5.
5. Weiss HA, Dickson KE, Agot K, Hankins CA. Male circumcision for HIV prevention: current research and programmatic issues. AIDS. 2010;24 Suppl 4(0 4):S61-S69. DOI: 10.1097/01.aids.0000390708.66136.f4
6. UNAIDS/WHO/SACEMA Expert Group on Modelling the Impact and Cost of Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in high HIV prevalence settings: what can mathematical modelling contribute to informed decision making? PLoS Med. 2009;6(9):e1000109. Erratum in: PLoS Med. 2009;6(12). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000109
7. Alanis MC, Lucidi RS. Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world's oldest and most controversial operation. Obstet Gynecol SURV. 2004;59(5):379-395. DOI: 10.1097/00006254-200405000-00026
8. Barone MA, Li PS, Awori QD, Lee R, Goldstein M. Clinical trials using the Shang Ring device for male circumcision in Africa: a review. Transl Androl Urol. 2014;3(1):113-124. DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2223-4683.2014.01.09
9. Peng YF, Cheng Y, Wang GY, Wang SQ, Jia C, Yang BH, Zhu R, Jian SC, Li QW, Geng DW. Clinical application of a new device for minimally invasive circumcision. Asian J Androl. 2008;10(3):447-454. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-7262.2008.00411.x
10. Mutabazi V, Kaplan SA, Rwamasirabo E, Bitega JP, Ngeruka ML, Savio D, Karema C, Binagwaho A. HIV prevention: male circumcision comparison between a nonsurgical device to a surgical technique in resource-limited settings: a prospective, randomized, nonmasked trial. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2012;61(1):49-55. DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3182631d69
11. Kotov S.V., Alekberov E.M., Iritsyan M.M. Modern approach to the treatment of lichen sclerosus and its complications. Experimental and Clinical Urology. 2023;16(4):34-43. (In Russian) DOI: 10.29188/2222-8543-2023-16-4-34-43
12. Huo ZC, Liu G, Li XY, Liu F, Fan WJ, Guan RH, Li PF, Mo DY, He YZ. Use of a disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Androl. 2017;19(3):362-367. DOI: 10.4103/1008-682X.174855
13. Cao D, Liu L, Hu Y, Wang J, Yuan J, Dong Q, Wei Q. A systematic review and meta-analysis of circumcision with Shang Ring vs conventional circumcision. Urology. 2015;85(4):799-804. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.12.007
14. Huang C, Song P, Xu C, Wang R, Wei L, Zhao X. Comparative efficacy and safety of different circumcisions for patients with redundant prepuce or phimosis: A network meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2017;43:17-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.04.060
15. Güler Y, Özmerdiven GÇ, Erbin A. Comparison of ring instruments and classic circumcision methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arab J Urol. 2022;20(3):144-158. DOI: 10.1080/2090598X.2022.2071545
16. Fan Y, Cao D, Wei Q, Tang Z, Tan P, Yang L, Liu L, Liu Z, Li X, Xue W. The characteristics of circular disposable devices and in situ devices for optimizing male circumcision: a network meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2016;6:25514. DOI: 10.1038/srep25514
17. Hohlfeld AS, Ebrahim S, Zaki Shaik M, Kredo T. Circumcision devices versus standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult male circumcisions: a Cochrane review. BJU Int. 2022;130(1):26-34. DOI: 10.1111/bju.15604
18. World Health Organization. Framework for Clinical Evaluation of Devices for Male Circumcision. GeneVA: World Health Organization; 2012.
19. World Health Organization. Guideline on the Use of Devices for Adult Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention. GeneVa: World Health Organization; 2012.
20. Lee R, Osterberg EC, Li PS, Goldstein M, Barone M, Combes SL, Sokal D, Gray R, Kigozi G, Watya S. Proper surgical training and grading of complications for Shang Ring circumcision are necessary. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;64(2):e11. DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3182a333ad
21. Lei JH, Liu LR, Wei Q, Xue WB, Song TR, Yan SB, Yang L, Han P, Zhu YC. Circumcision with "no-flip Shang Ring" and "Dorsal Slit" methods for adult males: a single-centered, prospective, clinical study. Asian J Androl. 2016;18(5):798-802. DOI: 10.4103/1008-682X.157544
22. Kigozi G, Musoke R, Watya S, Kighoma N, Ssebbowa P, Serwadda D, Nalugoda F, Makumbi F, Li P, Lee R, Goldstein M, Wawer M, Sewankambo N, Gray RH. The acceptability and safety of the Shang Ring for adult male circumcision in Rakai, Uganda. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;63(5):617-621. DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0b013e3182968dda
23. Sokal DC, Li PS, Zulu R, Awori QD, Combes SL, Simba RO, Lee R, Hart C, Perchal P, Hawry HJ, Bowa K, Goldstein M, Barone MA. Randomized controlled trial of the shang ring versus conventional surgical techniques for adult male circumcision: safety and acceptability. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014;65(4):447-455. DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000061
24. Kigozi G, Musoke R, Watya S, Kighoma N, Nkale J, Nakafeero M, Namuguzi D, Serwada D, Nalugoda F, Sewankambo N, Wawer MJ, Gray RH. The safety and acceptance of the PrePex device for non-surgical adult male circumcision in Rakai, Uganda. A non-randomized observational study. PLoS One. 2014;9(8):e100008. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100008
25. Chou AC, Laih CY, Ku FY. A Retrospective Taiwanese-Population-Based Clinical Study on Determining the Efficacy and Safety of Disposable Circumcision Anastomat. J Clin Med. 2022;11(20):6206. DOI: 10.3390/jcm11206206
Review
For citations:
Kotov S.V., Pavlov I.S., Korochkin N.D., Alekberov E.M. Device-based circumcision: advantages, choice of device and surgical technique. Urology Herald. 2024;12(4):114-120. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21886/2308-6424-2024-12-4-114-120
Views:
4479
Email this article 
