ArticleScientific reports2025
Retrospective analysis of clinical outcomes and early complications of conventional circumcision techniques and thermocautery-assisted circumcision.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared various circumcision techniques, specifically the dorsal slit (DS), sleeve resection (SR), and forceps-guided (FG) techniques, which fall under the category of conventional circumcision techniques, with the thermocautery-assisted circumcision (TAC) technique. The aim was to investigate the safety and efficacy of these circumcision methods by focusing on clinical outcomes and early complications, categorizing the associated complications using the Clavien-Dindo classification system (CDCS). A total of 7041 circumcised patients were retrospectively analyzed and grouped according to the applied techniques: DS, SR, FG, and TAC. Factors such as age, duration of the procedure, bleeding, edema, infection, recovery time, and local anesthetic technique parameters were compared. Complications were classified according to the modified CDCS. The duration of the procedure was 4.7 min (range 4.5-5.2), and bleeding (hematoma) was significantly lower in the TAC group with seven cases (0.3%) (p < 0.001). The recovery time of 5 days (range 5-7 days) and the incidence of edema were longer in TAC compared to other techniques (p < 0.001). Additionally, the recovery time in the SR group was shorter than that of the FG and DS groups (p < 0.001). After adjusting for confounding factors such as age, duration of the procedure, and local anesthetic techniques, the likelihood of perioperative bleeding was observed to statistically significantly increase in the FG (odds ratio [OR] = 61.663, 95% confidence interval [CI] 42.764-88.913, p < 0.001), DS (OR = 59.249, 95% CI 39.382-89.141, p < 0.001), and SR (OR = 161.952, 95% CI 96.100-272.930, p < 0.001), in that order, compared to the TAC group. Furthermore, compared to the TAC group, the likelihood of severe edema statistically significantly decreased in the FG (OR = 0.010, 95% CI 0.004-0.027, p < 0.001), DS (OR = 0.040, 95% CI 0.017-0.092, p < 0.001), and SR (OR = 0.043, 95% CI 0.015-0.124, p < 0.001) groups, in that order. There was no significant difference between the surgical techniques according to the CDCS evaluation. TAC demonstrated advantages over the remaining techniques in terms of less bleeding and shorter duration of the procedure. However, it also presented with disadvantages such as postoperative edema and longer recovery time.
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.