Journal of Pediatric Urology
Volume 6, Issue 6 , Pages 572-577 , December 2010

Prospective randomized trial comparing dissection with Plastibell® circumcision

  • José Murillo Bastos Netto

      Affiliations

    • Federal University of Juiz de Fora – Department of Morphology, Brazil
    • Faculdade de Ciências Médicas e da Saúde de Juiz de Fora – SUPREMA, Department of Urology, Brazil
    • University Hospital of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora – Department of Urology, Brazil
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Av. Rio Branco, 2985/sl. 605, Juiz de Fora – MG, 36010-012 Brazil. Tel./fax: +55 32 3218 9899.
    • ,
  • José Gonçalves de Araújo Jr.

      Affiliations

    • Federal University of Juiz de Fora – Department of Urology, Brazil
    • ,
  • Marcos Flávio de Almeida Noronha

      Affiliations

    • Federal University of Juiz de Fora – Department of Urology, Brazil
    • ,
  • Bruno Rezende Passos

      Affiliations

    • Federal University of Juiz de Fora – Department of Urology, Brazil
    • ,
  • José de Bessa Jr.

      Affiliations

    • State University of Feira de Santana – Division of Urology, Brazil
    • ,
  • André Avarese Figueiredo

      Affiliations

    • Federal University of Juiz de Fora – Department of Morphology, Brazil
    • University Hospital of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora – Department of Urology, Brazil

Received 23 August 2009 ,Accepted 7 January 2010.

References 

  1. Elmore JM, Baker LA, Snodgras WT. Topical steroid therapy as an alternative to circumcision for phimosis in boys younger than 3 years. J Urol. 2002;168:1746–1747
  2. Pileggi FO, Vicente YA. Phimotic ring topical corticoid cream (0,1% mometasone furoate) treatment in children. J Pediatr Surg. 2007;42:1749–1752
  3. Freitas RG, Nobre YD, Demarchi GTS, Hachul M, Macedo A, Srougi M, et al. Topical treatment for phimosis: time span and other factors behind treatment effectiveness. J Pediatr Urol. 2006;2:380–385
  4. Orsola A, Caffaratti J, Garat JM. Conservative treatment of phimosis in children using a topical steroid. Urology. 2000;56:307–310
  5. Hirji H, Charlton R, Sarmah S. Male circumcision: a review of the evidence. J Mens Health Gend. 2005;2:21–30
  6. Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman EW. Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice. JAMA. 1997;277:1052–1057
  7. Tucker SC, Cerqueiro J, Sterne GD, Bracka A. Circumcision: a refined technique and 5 year review. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2001;83:121–125
  8. Subramaniam R, Jacobsen AS. Sutureless circumcision: a prospective randomised controlled study. Pediatr Surg Int. 2004;20:783–785
  9. O'Sullivan DC, Heal MR, Powell CS. Circumcision: how do urologists do it?. Br J Urol. 1996;78:265–270
  10. Lazarus J, Alexander A, Rode H. Circumcision complications associated with the Plastibell device. S Afr Med J. 2007;97:192–193
  11. Cilento BG, Holmes NM, Canning DA. Plastibell complications revisited. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1999;38:685–686
  12. Jensen MK. Surgery for phimosis with Plastibell. A follow-up study. Ugeskr Laeger. 1998;160:3920–3923
  13. Mak YLM, Cho SC, Fai MW. Childhood circumcision: conventional dissection or Plastibell device – a prospective randomized trial. Hong Kong Pract. 1995;17:101–105
  14. Fraser IA, Allen MJ, Bagshaw PF, Johnstone M. A randomized trial to assess childhood circumcision with the Plastibell device compared to a conventional dissection technique. Br J Surg. 1981;68:593–595
  15. Mousavi SA, Salehifar E. Circumcision complications associated with the Plastibell device and conventional dissection surgery: a trial of 586 infants of ages up to 12 months. Adv Urol. 2008;606123;Epub 2008 Nov 4
  16. Kayaba H, Tamur H, Kitajima S, Fujiwara Y, Kato T, Kato T. Analysis of Shape and retractability of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys. J Urol. 1996;156:1813–1815
  17. Dunsmuir WD, Gordon EM. The history of circumcision. Br J Urol. 1999;83(Suppl.):1–12
  18. Prucha ZS. Circumcision? cutting out the routine cut. Can Med Assoc J. 1980;122:834
  19. Lannon CM, Bailey AGD, Fleischman AR, Kaplan GW, Shoemaker CT, Swanson JT, et al. Circumcision policy statement. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on circumcision. Pediatrics. 1999;103:686–693
  20. Leitch IO. Circumcision: a continuing enigma. Aust Pediatr. 1970;6:59–65
  21. Policy Statement – Publications Retired and Reaffirmed – American Academy of Pediatrics. Pediatrics. 2005;116:796
  22. Johnsonbaugh RE. Complication of a circumcision performed with a plastic disposable circumcision device: long-term follow-up. Am J Dis Child. 1979;133(4):438
  23. Al-Samarrai AYI, Mofti AB, Crankson SJ, Jawad A, Haque K, al-Meshari A. A review of a Plastibell® device in neonatal circumcision in 2,000 instances. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1988;167:341–343
  24. Datta NS, Zinner NR. Complication from Plastibell® circumcision ring. Urology. 1977;9:57–58
  25. Cilento BG, Holmes NM, Canning DA. Plastibell® complications revisited. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1999;38:685–686
  26. Bode CO, Ikhisemojie S, Ademuyiwa AO. Penile injuries from proximal migration of the plastibell circumcision ring. J Pediatr Urol. 2010;6:23–27
  27. Hutcheson JC. Male neonatal circumcision: indications, controversies and complications. Urol Clin North Am. 2004;31:461–467
  28. Kazem MM, Mehdi AZ, Golrasteh KZ, Behzad FZ. Comparative evaluation of two techniques of hemostasis in neonatal circumcision using plastibell device. J Pediatr Urol. 2010;6(3):258–260
  29. Atalla MF, Taweela MN. Pathogenesis of post-circumcision adhesions. Pediatr Surg Int. 1994;9:103–105
  30. Van Howe RS. Variability in penile appearance and penile findings: a prospective study. Br J Urol. 1997;80:776–782
  31. Ponsky LE, Ross JH, Knipper N, Kay R. Penile adhesions after neonatal circumcision. J Urol. 2000;164:495–496

PII: S1477-5131(10)00008-2

doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2010.01.005

Journal of Pediatric Urology
Volume 6, Issue 6 , Pages 572-577 , December 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution