Randomized Controlled Trial of the ShangRing for Adult Medical Male Circumcision: Safety, Effectiveness, and Acceptability of Using 7 Versus 14 Device Sizes

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.

The Role of Nurses and Midwives in Expanding and Sustaining Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision Services for HIV Prevention: A Systematic and Policy Review

ABSTRACT

Male circumcision reduces men's risk of acquiring HIV through heterosexual sex, and voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) is central to HIV prevention strategies in 15 sub-Saharan African countries. Nurses have emerged as primary VMMC providers; however, barriers remain to institutionalizing nurse-led VMMC. Patient safety concerns have hindered task sharing, and regulations governing nurse-performed VMMC are not always supportive or clear. We performed a systematic review on VMMC safety by provider cadre and a desk review of national policies governing the VMMC roles of nurses and midwives. Also, VMMC by nurses is safe and has become standard practice. Countries had multiple policy combinations among different documents, with only one disallowing VMMC by these cadres. Countries with alignment between policies often ensured that nursing workforces were equipped with clinical competencies through national certification. Regulatory clarity and formalized certification for nurse-performed VMMC can increase program sustainability and build nursing capacity to meet other critical basic surgical needs.

Simplifying the ShangRing technique for circumcision in boys and men: use of the no-flip technique with randomization to removal at 7 days versus spontaneous detachment

To assess safety of the no-flip ShangRing male circumcision technique and to determine clinical course and safety of spontaneous detachment (i.e., allowing the device to fall off), we conducted a case series of no-flip ShangRing circumcision combined with a randomized controlled trial of removal 7 days postcircumcision versus spontaneous detachment at two health facilities in Kenya. The primary outcome was the safety of the no-flip technique based on moderate and severe adverse events (AEs) during the procedure and through 42-day follow-up. A main secondary outcome was clinical course and safety of spontaneous detachment. Two hundred and thirty males 10 years and older underwent no-flip circumcision; 114 randomized to 7-day removal and 116 to spontaneous detachment. All circumcisions were successfully completed. Overall 5.3% (6/114) of participants in the 7-day group and 1.7% (2/116) in the spontaneous group had an AE; with no differences when compared to the 3% AE rate in historical data from African studies using the original flip technique (P = 0.07 and P = 0.79, respectively). Overall 72.4% (84/116) of participants in the spontaneous group wore the ShangRing until it detached. Among the remaining (27.6%; 32/116), the ring was removed, primarily at the participants' request, due to pain or discomfort. There was no difference in AE rates (P = 0.169), visit day declared healed (P = 0.324), or satisfaction (P = 0.371) between randomization groups. The median time to detachment was 14.0 (IQR: 7–21, range: 5–35) days. The no-flip technique and spontaneous detachment are safe, effective, and acceptable to boys and men 10 years and older. Phimosis and penile adhesions do not limit successful ShangRing circumcision with the no-flip technique.

Rollout of ShangRing circumcision with active surveillance for adverse events and monitoring for uptake in Kenya

INTRODUCTION

Since 2011, Kenya has been evaluating ShangRing device for use in its voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) program according to World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. Compared to conventional surgical circumcision, the ShangRing procedure is shorter, does not require suturing and gives better cosmetic outcomes. After a pilot evaluation of ShangRing in 2011, Kenya conducted an active surveillance for adverse events associated with its use from 2016-2018 to further assess its safety, uptake and to identify any operational bottlenecks to its widespread use based on data from a larger pool of procedures in routine health care settings.

METHODS

From December 2017 to August 2018, HIV-negative VMMC clients aged 13 years or older seeking VMMC at six sites across five counties in Kenya were offered ShangRing under injectable local anesthetic as an alternative to conventional surgical circumcision. Providers described both procedures to clients before letting them make a choice. Outcome measures recorded for clients who chose ShangRing included the proportions who were clinically eligible, had successful device placement, experienced adverse events (AEs), or failed to return for device removal. Clients failing to return for follow up were sought through phone calls, text messages or home visits to ensure removal and complete information on adverse events.

RESULTS

Out of 3,692 eligible clients 1,079 (29.2%) chose ShangRing; of these, 11 (1.0%) were excluded due to ongoing clinical conditions, 17 (1.6%) underwent conventional surgery due to lack of appropriate device size at the time of the procedure, 97.3% (1051/1079) had ShangRing placement. Uptake of ShangRing varied from 11% to 97% across different sites. There was one severe AE, a failed ShangRing placement (0.1%) managed by conventional wound suturing, plus two moderate AEs (0.2%), post removal wound dehiscence and bleeding, that resolved without sequelae. The overall AE rate was 0.3%. All clients returned for device removal from fifth to eleventh day after placement.

CONCLUSION

ShangRing circumcision is effective and safe in the Kenyan context but its uptake varies widely in different settings. It should be rolled out under programmatic implementation for eligible males to take advantage of its unique benefits and the freedom of choice beyond conventional surgical MMC. Public education on its availability and unique advantages is necessary to optimize its uptake and to actualize the benefit of its inclusion in VMMC programs.