ArticleBMC urology2024
Comparative analysis of two methods in circumcision: a new disposable device versus classic sleeve technique.
Article in BMC urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes and early complications of conventional circumcision techniques and thermocautery-assisted circumcision.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Correction: Comparative analysis of two methods in circumcision: a new disposable device versus classic sleeve technique.BMC urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCircumcision 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
methodsBetween 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.
resultsThe 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.
conclusionThe 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.
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.