Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Use of a disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision： a systematic review and meta-analysis
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Use of a disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision： a systematic review and meta-analysis
Do you wish to request the book?
Use of a disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision： a systematic review and meta-analysis
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Use of a disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision： a systematic review and meta-analysis
2017
Overview
This systematic review assessed the safety and efficacy of the disposable circumcision suture device （DCSD） and conventional circumcision （CC） in the treatment of redundant prepuce and phimosis. Two independent reviewers conducted a literature search for randomized controlled trials （RCTs） using the DCSD and CC for the treatment of redundant prepuce or phimosis in China and abroad. Nine RCTs （1898 cases） were included. Compared with the CC group, the DCSD group had a shorter operative time （standardized mean difference [SMD] = -21.44; 95% confidence intervals [95% CIs] [-25.08, -17.79]; P 〈 0.00001）, shorter wound healing time （SMD = -3.66; 95% CI [-5.46, -1.85]; P 〈 0.0001）, less intraoperative blood loss （SMD = -9.64; 95% CI [-11.37, -7.90]; P 〈 0.00001）, better cosmetic penile appearance （odds ratio [OR] =8.77; 95% CI [5.90, 13.02]; P 〈 0.00001）, lower intraoperative pain score, lower 24-h postoperative pain score, lower incidence of infection, less incision edema, and fewer adverse events. There were no differences between the CC and DCSD groups in the incidences of dehiscence, or hematoma. The results of this meta-analysis indicate that the DCSD appears to be safer and more effective than CC. However, additional high-quality RCTs with larger study populations are needed.
Publisher
Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd,Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd,Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd,Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
