The characteristics of circular disposable devices and in situ devices for optimizing male circumcision: a network meta-analysis

Efficacy and safety of two disposable circumcision suture devices for circumcision in adults: a prospective comparative multicenter study

The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare efficacy and safety of two different Disposable circumcision suture devices (DCSDs). A prospective comparative non-randomized multicenter study was performed between November 2019 and February 2023. Patients underwent circumcision using a DCSD (CircCurerTM or the ZSR® device) according to the surgeon preference and device availability. A total of 378 patients were circumcised; 184 using CircCurerTM and 194 patients using ZSR®. No differences in baseline characteristics were observed. CircCurer and ZSR Groups showed similar rates of operative time (7.7 ±2.1 vs 7.3 ±2.0 min), surgical site infection (1.1% Vs 1.5%), edema (13% Vs 8.2%), hematomas (2.7% Vs 1.1%), and postoperative pain (2.5 Vs 2.0 points). ZSR Group had a significantly higher rate of clip fallout (62.9% Vs 38%, p < 0.001). At 2 months, patients of both groups reported a median satisfaction of 9 (8-9) points. Main limitation consist in non-randomized study. DCSDs seem to be effective and safe, with short operative times, uncommon and mild complications, and high patient satisfaction. ZSR® device has a higher rate of spontaneous staple dropout.

Circumcision devices versus standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult male circumcisions

BACKGROUND

Medical circumcisions are among the most common surgical procedures performed in males. The usual indications are phimosis (inability to completely retract the foreskin and expose the glans due to a congenital or acquired constriction of the prepuce), paraphimosis (when the foreskin is not pulled back over the glans after retraction resulting in a tight constricting band which causes swelling of the distal penis and acute discomfort), balanoposthitis (erythema and edema of the prepuce and glans) and balanitis (inflammation is confined to the glans; the foreskin is usually non-retractile). Circumcision devices have been developed to shorten the operative time, simplify techniques, and improve safety and cosmetic outcomes. The devices generally aim to crush the foreskin while simultaneously creating hemostasis, the foreskin is then excised or allowed to slough off. Their use is supposedly safer and easier to replicate than the standard dissection techniques. There are at least 20 devices for male circumcision on the market, yet their effectiveness has not been reviewed to date.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of device-based circumcisions compared with standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult males (10 years old and above).

SEARCH METHODS

We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions to the language of publication or publication status. We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, trials registries, grey literature sources and conference proceedings up to 16 April 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials of device-based circumcisions (crush or ligature circumcision devices) compared to standard surgical dissection-based circumcision conducted by health professionals in a medical setting.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data from the included studies. We classified adverse events into serious, moderate or mild. We reported study results as risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) using 95% confidence intervals (CI) and a random-effects model. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen trials met the inclusion criteria. Trials were conducted in China, South Africa, Kenya and Zambia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Primary outcomes Serious adverse events: there were no serious adverse events in either treatment arm (11 trials, 3472 participants). Moderate adverse events: there may be a slight increase in moderate adverse events when devices are used compared to standard surgical techniques (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.10; I²= 68%; 10 trials, 3370 participants; low-certainty evidence); this corresponds to 8 more (ranging from 15 fewer to 84 more) moderate adverse events per 1000 participants. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for study limitations and imprecision. Secondary outcomes Mild adverse events: we are uncertain about the difference in mild adverse events between groups when devices are used compared to standard surgical techniques (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.72; I² = 91%; 10 trials, 3370 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for study limitations, imprecision and unexplained inconsistency. Operative time: operative time is probably about 17 minutes shorter when using a device rather than standard surgical techniques, which constitutes a clinically meaningful decrease in a procedure (MD -17.26 minutes, 95% CI -19.96 to -14.57; I² = 99%; 14 trials, 4812 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for serious study limitations. The standard surgical technique generally takes about 24 minutes. There may be less postoperative pain during the first 24 hours when circumcision devices are used compared to standard surgical techniques (measured using a visual analog scale [VAS]; MD 1.30 cm lower, 95% CI 2.37 lower to 0.22 lower; I² = 99%; 9 trials, 3022 participants; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for study limitations and unexplained heterogeneity. There may be little or no difference in postoperative pain experienced during the first seven days when compared with standard surgical techniques (measured using a VAS; MD 0.11 cm higher, 95% CI 0.89 lower to 1.11 higher; I² = 94%; 4 trials, 1430 participants; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for study limitations and unexplained inconsistency. A higher score on the VAS indicates greater pain. Participants may slightly prefer circumcision devices compared to standard surgical techniques (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.37; I² = 97%; 15 trials, 4501 participants; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for study limitations and unexplained inconsistency. We recorded satisfaction as a dichotomous outcome. Higher rates reflected greater satisfaction.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found that there were no serious adverse events reported when using a circumcision device compared to standard surgical techniques, but they may slightly increase moderate adverse effects, and it is unclear whether there is a difference in mild adverse effects. Use of circumcision devices probably reduces the time of the procedure by about 17 minutes, a clinically meaningful time saving. For patients, use of the circumcision device may result in lower pain scores during the first 24 hours and patients may be slightly more satisfied with it compared with standard surgical techniques. Clinicians, patients and policymakers can use these results in conjunction with their own contextual factors to inform the approach that best suits their healthcare settings. High-quality trials evaluating this intervention are needed to provide further certainty regarding the rates of adverse effects and postoperative pain of using devices compared to standard approaches.

Modified Circumcision Using the Disposable Circumcision Suture Device in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate and compare the surgical outcomes and complications of the modified circumcision using disposable circumcision suture device (device group) and the conventional dorsal slit circumcision (conventional group) in children.

METHODS

A total of 284 patients were randomized to either device group or conventional group. All patients were preoperatively assessed and evaluated at 4 weeks after surgery. The perioperative data and postoperative outcomes were compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

No statistical differences were observed in the average age and indications between the 2 groups preoperatively (P > .05). Compared with the conventional group, patients in the device group were shorter mean operative time, less blood loss, lower intraoperative and postoperative pain score, faster incision healing time and a higher satisfaction rate of penile cosmetic appearance (P < .01). Similarly, the incidences of complication were significantly lower in the device group than in the conventional group (4.3% vs 12.3%, P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

The modified circumcision using disposable circumcision suture device is a simple, safe, faster, and effective procedure and may become the attractive alternative to the conventional technique for the children, with a relatively lower complication rate and better cosmetic results. With the improvement of disposable circumcision suture device, the modified circumcision using disposable circumcision suture device has the potential to be widely used in the world.

Novel Devices for Adolescent and Adult Male Circumcision

There is an abundance of devices for adolescent and adult male circumcision (MC). It has been shown that the safety and efficacy of device-assisted MC are equal to or better than those for MC via conventional surgery. MC devices have the potential to simplify the procedure and increase the acceptability of circumcision among patients.

Circumcision and its effects in Africa

Male circumcision is one of the most commonly performed procedures in Africa, with a wide variation between the different regions on the practice. This is because circumcision is often done for religious and cultural or traditional reasons, which includes being part of rituals or rite of passage to adulthood. There had been few medical indications for the procedure until the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) pandemic, which is prevalent in many of the countries in the region. Evidence from randomized controlled trials conducted in the continent had shown that male circumcision could be instrumental to reducing the transmission of HIV/AIDS in heterosexual couples in high disease prevalent and low circumcision prevalent areas. This had led to the roll-out of large population-based adult male circumcisions as well as the development of tools to facilitate the procedure. Circumcision, however, is not without complications and the incidence appears related to the age of the patient, where the procedure was done, technique used and level of proficiency of the practitioners. This article reviews the practice of circumcision in Africa and highlights the impact of the procedure on the continent.