Circumcision with plastic Alisclamp technique in 4733 boys: our experiences to reduce complications

Alisklamp versus Conventional Dorsal Slit Circumcision: A Multicentric Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: There are numerous methods of circumcision performed worldwide, typically classified into two main groups: conventional surgical techniques and various device-assisted techniques. Each method has its own advantages, limitations, and potential complications. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of the Alisklamp technique versus the dorsal slit technique in male circumcision procedures. Method: This multicenter RCT compared the dorsal slit and Alisklamp techniques for circumcision, assessing patient demographics and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. All patients, under local anesthesia via dorsal penile nerve block, were discharged on the same day and followed up at 24-48 h, 1 week, and 1 month. Results: A total of 180 patients enrolled, and 166 patients were included. The study compared postoperative outcomes between the Alisklamp (AK) and dorsal slit (DS) circumcision techniques in 166 patients. Key findings included significantly higher penile edema in the DS group (19%) compared to the AK group (2.4%) (p < 0.001), with severe edema occurring only in the DS group. Wound gaping was more common in the AK group (8.3%) compared to the DS group (1.2%) (p = 0.030). Skin tunnels were observed only in the DS group (9.5%) (p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in nausea, vomiting, bleeding, necrosis, infection, wound dehiscence, chordee, rotational anomalies, or secondary phimosis between the groups. Mean operation time was lower in the AK group than the DS group (7.8 min vs. 15.5 min; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The Alisklamp technique is recommended as the preferred method for circumcision because it minimizes complications, shortens the procedure time, and is easy to apply.

Comparative analysis of two methods in circumcision: a new disposable device versus classic sleeve technique

PURPOSE

Circumcision is the most common surgical procedures performed in males. Medical circumcision is recommended for diseases such as phimosis, paraphimosis, balanoposthitis and common urinary tract infections, although there is no exact indication. Conversely, Jewish and Muslim individuals commonly undergo circumcision regardless of medical necessity. Circumcision devices are designed to shorten surgery time, achieve an aesthetic appearance and ensure safe surgery. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the NeoAlis clamp, a disposable circumcision device, by comparing it with the sleeve technique in children.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between 2017 and 2023, retrospective evaluation of 2626 patients who underwent circumcision using either the NeoAlis clamp (group 1) or the sleeve technique (group 2) was conducted. Operation time, results, cost, complications were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The study encompassed 2626 patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Group 1 comprised 2403 patients, whereas Group 2 consisted of 223 patients. The overall complication rate, as denoted by n = 47, was 1.7%. Group 1 operation time was shorter than group 2. Bleeding, the most feared complication in the early period, was higher in the second group. No statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding cost comparison.

CONCLUSION

The primary concern during circumcision is to avoid complications related to general anesthesia in newborns and infants. The use of disposable ring devices has been facilitated by the shorter operation time and the absence of the need for sutures when performing circumcision under local anesthesia. However, knowledge of advanced surgical circumcision techniques is necessary in cases of bleeding and inappropriate ring placement.

What is a vulva?

What exactly is a vulva? The question remains unresolved. Some sources consider the clitoris, labia, mons pubis, perineum, or vagina to be components of the vulva, while other sources do not. Indeed, disagreement exists among international anatomical and clinical societies with regard to what precise structures form the human vulva. The obfuscation regarding the anatomy of the vulva and, likewise, inconsistencies in vulva-related anatomical terminology have adversely affected communication, research, and healthcare. Therefore, this review was undertaken to provide a comprehensive and critical analysis regarding the past, present, and potential future of vulvar anatomy and vulva-related anatomical terminology. The review reveals that confusion regarding the specific gross anatomical structures that form the vulva has persisted for thousands of years. The review provides novel information regarding the etymology of vulva, contributes important historical context regarding vulva, and gives details regarding related anatomical terminology including clitoris, hymen, labia majora, labia minora, mons pubis, pudendum, pudendum femininum/muliebre, uterus, vagina, et cetera. The review highlights disagreement regarding what specific structures comprise a vulva, identifies sexual bias in anatomical terminology and among noteworthy anatomical resources, and offers novel perspectives regarding anatomical terminology-especially anatomical terminology that relates to the external genitalia. What specific anatomical structures comprise the vulva? This review provides a comprehensive and critical analysis regarding the past, present, and potential future of vulvar anatomy and vulva-related anatomical terminology.