z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Clinical application of a new device for minimally invasive circumcision
Author(s) -
Peng YiFeng,
Cheng Yue,
Wang GuoYao,
Wang SuoQun,
Jia Chao,
Yang BenHai,
Zhu Ru,
Jian ShuChuan,
Li QingWen,
Geng DaWei
Publication year - 2008
Publication title -
asian journal of andrology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.701
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1745-7262
pISSN - 1008-682X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1745-7262.2008.00411.x
Subject(s) - foreskin , medicine , surgery , wound dehiscence , dehiscence , edema , genetics , biology , cell culture
Aim: To study the clinical effects of a disposable circumcision device in treatment of male patients of different ages with either phimosis or excess foreskin. Methods: One thousand two hundred patients between the age of 5 and 95 years underwent circumcision using this procedure in the 2‐year period between October 2005 and September 2007. Of these cases, 904 had excess foreskin and 296 were cases of phimosis. Results: In 96.33% of the cases the incision healed, leaving a minimal amount of the inner foreskin with no scarring and producing good cosmetic results. There were no incidents of device dislocation or damage to the frenulum. The average operative time was 2.5 min for excess foreskin, and 3.5 min for phimosis. During the 7 days of wearing the device, mild to moderate edema occurred in 10.08 % of cases with excess foreskin and in 2.58 % of those with phimosis. Edema in the frenulum was seen in 1.67% of patients, and only 0.67% had an infection of the incision. A total of 86.25% of patients reported pain due to penile erection. After removal of the device, 0.58% of the cases had minimal bleeding around the incision, and 2.42% had wound dehiscence. Conclusion: The new device can be applied to an overwhelming majority of patients with phimosis and excess foreskin. This technique is relatively simple to perform, and patients who underwent this surgery had very few complications. Antibiotics were not required and patients reported less pain than those who were circumcised using conventional methods. Circumcision with this device requires minimal tissue manipulation, and is quicker and safer than circumcision using conventional techniques.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here