ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Biological welding: a rapid and bloodless approach to circumcision.
Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ex Vivo Human Foreskin Tissue Circumcision via High-Frequency Electric Welding.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Biological welding enables rapid and efficient bladder cystotomy closure and reveals the underlying repair mechanism.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes and early complications of conventional circumcision techniques and thermocautery-assisted circumcision.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCircumcision is essential for male health, yet traditional methods are plagued by issues such as lengthy operative times, bleeding, and slow recovery. This study explores the application of biological welding technology in circumcision, assessing its potential as a safe and efficient novel surgical approach.
methodsIn this study, 24 male adult dogs were randomly divided into two groups. The biological welding group underwent circumcision using biological welding technology, while the control group received traditional cut-and-suture circumcision. Clinical indicators such as surgical time, blood loss, pathological changes, and recovery time were observed and compared.
resultsThe biological welding group had a significantly shorter surgical time compared to the control group (2.33 ± 0.55 min vs. 27.06 ± 5.77 min, p < 0.001). The control group had an average blood loss of 22.35 ± 5.17 ml, whereas the biological welding group experienced zero blood loss (p < 0.001). Recovery time was also significantly shorter in the biological welding group (12.33 ± 3.50 d vs. 16.50 ± 2.57 d, p = 0.004), with a lower incidence of postoperative complications. Pathological analysis indicated that the thermal injury range in the biological welding group was controlled within 2 mm.
conclusionBiological welding technology demonstrated advantages in circumcision, including short surgical time, no bleeding, minimal thermal damage, and rapid recovery, proving to be a safe and effective novel circumcision technique with potential clinical application value.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39661195What 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.