Trial reportBrazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica2015
Adult male circumcision with a circular stapler versus conventional circumcision: A prospective randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Brazilian journal of medical and biological research = Revista brasileira de pesquisas medicas e biologica, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Circumcision devices versus standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult male circumcisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of two disposable circumcision suture devices for circumcision in adults: a prospective comparative multicenter study.International journal of impotence research · 2025Trial
- Trial
- Stapler vs. sleeve circumcision for multiple penile condylomata acuminata: a comparative study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Single-operator circumcision using a penile circumcision and suturing device: a pilot comparative feasibility study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Comment On: A novel circumcision technique for adult phimosis combining three techniques: a retrospective comparative study.International journal of impotence research · 2026Article
- Comment on: Efficacy and safety of two disposable circumcision suture devices for circumcision in adults: a prospective comparative multicenter study.International journal of impotence research · 2025Article
- The dartocavernous stitch surgical technique for prevention of recurrent phimosis in obese patients presenting for circumcision.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- A Retrospective Taiwanese-Population-Based Clinical Study on Determining the Efficacy and Safety of Disposable Circumcision Anastomat.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Circumcision devices versus standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult male circumcisions: a Cochrane review.BJU international · 2022Review
- The characteristics of circular disposable devices and in situ devices for optimizing male circumcision: a network meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Male circumcision is the most frequently performed procedure by urologists. Safety and efficacy of the circumcision procedure requires continual improvement. In the present study, we investigated the safety and efficacy of a new male circumcision technique involving the use of a circular stapler. In total, 879 consecutive adult male patients were randomly divided into 2 groups: 441 underwent stapler circumcision, and 438 underwent conventional circumcision. The operative time, pain score, blood loss volume, healing time, treatment costs, and postoperative complications were compared between the two groups. The operative time and blood loss volume were significantly lower in the stapler group than in the conventional group (6.8 ± 3.1 vs 24.2 ± 3.2 min and 1.8 ± 1.8 vs 9.4 ± 1.5 mL, respectively; P<0.01 for both). The intraoperative and postoperative pain scores were significantly lower in the stapler group than in the conventional group (0.8 ± 0.5 vs 2.4 ± 0.8 and 4.0 ±0.9 vs 5.8 ± 1.0, respectively; P<0.01 for both). Additionally, the stapler group had significantly fewer complications than the conventional group (2.7% vs 7.8%, respectively; P<0.01). However, the treatment costs in the stapler group were much higher than those in the conventional group (US$356.60 ± 8.20 vs US$126.50 ± 7.00, respectively; P<0.01). Most patients (388/441, 88.0%) who underwent stapler circumcision required removal of residual staple nails. Overall, the present study has shown that stapler circumcision is a time-efficient and safe male circumcision technique, although it requires further improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.