Comparison Of Duration Of Surgery Of Conventional Dissection Circumcision And Plastibell Device Circumcision
Dissection & Plastibell Device
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54393/pbmj.v5i1.168Keywords:
Circumcision, Plastibell, Duration of Surgery, Dissection CircumcisionAbstract
The study aimed to compare Conventional dissection circumcision and Plastibell device circumcision in terms of mean duration of surgery. Study design: Quasi-Experimental Study. Place and duration of study: Eleven months from January 10, 2021, to December 10, 2021, in the Department of General Surgery, Nescom Hospital. Methodos: Subjects were randomly divided equally into two groups. Group A included 40 patients who underwent conventional dissection circumcision, and group B included 40 patients who underwent Plastibell circumcision. Operative time was noted in minutes in both groups. Results: Mean operative time found in Group A was 14.25 min ± 1.92 SD, and for Group B, it was 4.88 min ± 0.73 SD (P<0.05). Conclusion: Circumcision by plastic bell device method resulted in a significant reduction in operating time compared to conventional circumcision technique. This technique could be adopted on a routine basis to lessen the burden on the busy operation theater schedule.
References
Amer MS, Manhas AH. Circumcision: Complications Associated with the Plastibell Device and Conventional Dissection Surgery: A Trial of 200 neonates. Ann Punjab Med Coll.2010;4:44-8.
WHO, UNAIDS. Male circumcision: Global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety, and acceptability. WHOPress.2007.
Siegfried N, Muller M, Deeks JJ, Volmink J. Male circumcision to prevent the heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009;2:CD003362.
https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003362.pub2
Barrie H, Huntingford PJ, Gough MH. The plastibell technique for circumcision. Br Med J. 1965;2:273-5.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.5456.273
Bawazir OA, Alsaiari WRS. Plastibell circumcision: Comparison between neonates and infants. Urol Ann. 2020 Oct-Dec;12(4):347-351. DOI: 10.4103/UA.UA_146_19. Epub 2020 October 15. PMID: 33776331; PMCID: PMC7992528.
https://doi.org/10.4103/UA.UA_146_19
Cao D, Liu L, Hu Y, Wang J, Yuan J, Dong Q, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of circumcision with Shang Ring vs. conventional circumcision. Urology. 2015;85:799-804.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.12.007
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/978-92-4-000854-0
Mousavi S, Salehifar E. Circumcision Complications Associated with the Plastibell Device and Conventional Dissection Surgery: A Trial of 586 Infants of Ages up to12 Months. Adv Urol.2008;2008:1-5.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/606123
Bastos Netto JM, de Araújo JG, de Almeida Noronha MF, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing dissection with Plastibell circumcision. J PediatrUrol.2010;6:572-7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2010.01.005
M Kibela, P Shah, D Ayuku, D Makorib, E Kamaara, and E Choge, et al. Acceptability of a Pilot Intervention in Western Kenya to Provide Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision and HIV Education to Street-Connected Youth. JODH, VOLUME 64, ISSUE 1, JANUARY 01, 2019, P43-48
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.07.027
Jatinkumar Bipinchandra Modi et al. Plastibell Circumcision Method vs. Conventional Circumcision Method in Terms of Operative Outcomes in Paediatric Patients A Retrospective Study. International Journal of Anatomy Radiology and Surgery. 2021 Jul, Vol-10(3): SO11-SO14
Shafaatullah, Suria B, Iqbal S. Outcome of plastibell method versus open technique for circumcision in children. J Surg Pakistan. 2019;24(2):85-88 Doi:10.21699/jsp.24.2.8.
Neeto JMB, De Bessa JJ, Figueredo AA (2013) Prospective randomized trial comparing dissection with Plastibell circumcision. Int Braz J Urol 39(4):572-577
Hamza, B.K., Ahmed, M., Bello, A. et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of circumcision by freehand technique and Plastibell device in children. Afr J Urol 26, 66 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12301-020-00076-z
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12301-020-00076-z
Ofoha CG, Babangida SJ, Nabasu LE, Dakum NK. Indications and safety of plastibell circumcision in children. Int Surg J 2018;5:1598-1601.
https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20181577
Abdullah L B, Mohammad A M, Anyanwu LC, Farinyaro A U. Outcome of male circumcision: A comparison between plastibell and dorsal slit methods. Niger J Basic Clin Sci 2018;15:5-8
https://doi.org/10.4103/njbcs.njbcs_38_16
S Moosa, A Muhammad, S Dogar, S Iftikhar,W Johnson, A Latife Et al. Implementation of an infant male circumcision programme, Pakistan. Bull World Health Organ 2021;99:250-258 | doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.19.249656
https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.19.249656
Jimoh BM, Odunayo IS, Chinwe I, Akinfolarin OO, Oluwafemi A, Olusanmi EJ. Plastibell circumcision of 2,276 male infants: a multi-centre study. Pan Afr Med J. 2016 02 9;23(1):35. PMID: 27200140
https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2016.23.35.7841
Ferhatoglu M F, Kartal A, Gurkan A (April 27, 2019) Evaluation of Male Circumcision: Retrospective Analysis of One Hundred and Ninety-eight Patients. Cureus 11(4): e4555. DOI 10.7759/cureus.4555
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.4555
Chukwubuike KE Neonatal Circumcision: First Cut is the Deepest. J Anaesth Surg Res. 2021;2(1):1-7 DOI:https://doi.org/10.37191/Mapsci-JASR-2(1)-014
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Pakistan BioMedical Journal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access journal and all the published articles / items are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. For comments editor@pakistanbmj.com
