Comparison of NeoAlis™ disposable circumcision device and sleeve technique in circumcision: Results from a referral health-care center in Turkey

Published:September 23, 2021DOI:



      Circumcision has been one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures worldwide since ancient times. Given the popularity of this procedure, the aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness, reliability, and results of circumcision performed using the NeoAlis™ clamp and compare them with those obtained using the sleeve technique.

      Study design

      The results of 2259 patients circumcised using the two techniques were evaluated retrospectively. The patients who were circumcised using the plastic NeoAlis™ device were classified as group 1 and those circumcised using the sleeve technique were designated as group 2. The groups were compared in terms of operation time, results, cost, complications, and cosmetic satisfaction scores.


      A total of 1947 patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. Group 1 consisted of 1454 patients, while group 2 comprised 493 patients. The total rate of complications, excluding bleeding in the form of oozing that stopped spontaneously, was 9.5% (n = 185). In group 1, the operation time was shorter, tolerability of local anesthesia was higher, satisfaction questionnaire scores were higher, cost was lower, and rates of early adhesion and meatal stenosis were lower. All of these parameters were significantly different from those in group 2. Notably, secondary phimosis was significantly higher in group 1. Although the bleeding that stopped with follow-up was significantly higher in group 2, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of bleeding that required surgical intervention.


      Our study, which reports the results of circumcisions performed using the NeoAlis clamp, has the largest sample size in the literature. Moreover, this is the only study in the literature wherein the results of sleeve circumcision, which is a time-tested surgical procedure, and the results of NeoAlis clamp circumcision, which we applied to a large number of patients, were compared with each other and with the literature. The retrospective design that focused on relatively short-term (one month) results is the major limitation of this study.


      Mass circumcision performed with a plastic clamp technique is safe, timesaving, easily teachable, and cosmetically advantageous.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Journal of Pediatric Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Alanis M.C.
        • Lucidi R.S.
        Neonatal circumcision: a review of the world's oldest and most controversial operation.
        Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2004; 59: 379-395
        • Kanyago S.
        • Riding D.M.
        • Mutakooha E.
        • Lopez de la O.A.
        • Siedner M.J.
        Shang Ring versus forceps-guided adult male circumcision: a randomized, controlled effectiveness study in southwestern Uganda.
        J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013; 64: 130-133
        • Hargreave T.
        Male circumcision: towards a World Health Organization normative practice in resource limited settings.
        Asian J Androl. 2010; 12: 628-638
        • Senel F.M.
        • Demirelli M.
        • Pekcan H.
        Mass circumcision with a novel plastic clamp technique.
        Urology. 2011; 78: 174-179
        • Morris B.J.
        • Eley C.
        Male circumcision: an appraisal of current instrumentation. Chapter 14.
        in: Fazel-Rezai R. Biomedical engineering - from theory to applications. InTech, Rijeka, Croatia2011: 315-354
        • Bordon L.M.
        Sleeve circumcision.
        Trop Doct. 1993 Oct; 23 (PMID: 8273166): 176-177
        • Abdulwahab-Ahmed Abdullahi
        • Mungadi I.A.
        J Surg Tech Case Rep. 2013; 5: 1
        • Morris B.J.
        • Waskett J.H.
        • Banerjee J.
        • Wamai R.G.
        • Tobian A.A.
        • Gray R.H.
        • et al.
        A ‘snip’ in time: what is the best age to circumcise?.
        BMC Pediatr. 2012; 12: 20
        • Weiss H.A.
        • Larke N.
        • Halperin D.
        • Schenker I.
        Complications of circumcision in male neonates, infants and children: a systematic review.
        BMC Urol. 2010 Feb 16; 10 (PMID: 20158883; PMCID: PMC2835667): 2
        • Tsen H.F.
        • Morgenstern H.
        • Mack T.
        • Peters R.K.
        Risk factors for penile cancer: results of a population-based case-control study in Los Angeles County (United States).
        Cancer Causes Control. 2001; 12: 267
        • Schoen E.J.
        • Oehrli M.
        • Colby Cd
        • Machin G.
        The highly protective effect of newborn circumcision against invasive penile cancer.
        Pediatrics. 2000 Mar; 105 (PMID: 10699138): E36
      1. US CDC statement on male circumcision:

        • Radmayr C.
        • Bogaert G.
        • Dogan H.S.
        • Nijman J.M.
        • Silay M.S.
        • Stein R.
        • et al.
        EAU guidelines: paediatric urology. EAU Guidelines Office. Arnhem, The Netherlands2020: 978-994 (92671-07-3)
        • American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision
        Circumcision policy statement.
        Pediatrics. 2012; 130: 585e6
        • Ladenhauf H.N.
        • Mircia A.A.
        • Christa S.
        • Francisca Y.
        • Günther S.
        Reduced bacterial colonisation of the glans penis after male circumcision in children—a prospective study.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2013; 9: 1137
        • L'Archevesque C.I.
        • Goldstein-Lohman H.
        Ritual circumcision: educating parents.
        Pediatr Nurs. 1996 May-Jun;22; 228 (PMID: 8717842.)): 230-234
        • Bailey R.C.
        • Moses S.
        • Parker C.B.
        • Agot K.
        • Maclean I.
        • Krieger J.N.
        • et al.
        Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial.
        Lancet. 2007 Feb 24; 369: 643-656
        • Huo Z.C.
        • Liu G.
        • Li X.Y.
        • Liu F.
        • Fan W.J.
        • Guan R.H.
        • et al.
        Use of a disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        Asian J Androl. 2017 May-Jun; 19 (PMID: 26975486; PMCID: PMC5427795): 362-367
        • Bawazir O.A.
        • Alsaiari W.R.S.
        Plastibell circumcision: comparison between neonates and infants.
        Urol Ann. 2020 Oct-Dec; 12: 347-351
        • Senel F.M.
        • Demirelli M.
        • Oztek S.
        Minimally invasive circumcision with a novel plastic clamp technique: a review of 7,500 cases.
        Pediatr Surg Int. 2010 Jul; 26: 739-745
        • Krill A.J.
        • Palmer L.S.
        • Palmer J.S.
        Complications of circumcision.
        Sci World J. 2011; 11 (Epub 2011 Dec 26. PMID: 22235177; PMCID: PMC3253617): 2458-2468
        • Talini C.
        • Antunes L.A.
        • Carvalho B.C.N.
        • Schultz K.L.
        • Del Valle M.H.C.P.
        • Aranha Junior A.A.
        • et al.
        Circumcision: postoperative complications that required reoperation.
        Einstein (Sao Paulo). 2018; 16 (Epub 2018 Aug 9. PMID: 30110068; PMCID: PMC6080702)eAO4241
        • Bar-Yosef Y.
        • Dekalo S.
        • Bar-Yaakov N.
        • Binyamini J.
        • Sofer M.
        • Ben-Chaim J.
        Scrotal injuries during neonatal circumcision.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2019 Feb; 15 (Epub 2018 Oct 18. PMID: 30449678): 69.e1-69.e3
        • Mano R.
        • Nevo A.
        • Sivan B.
        • Morag R.
        • Ben-Meir D.
        Post-ritual circumcision bleeding-characteristics and treatment outcome.
        Urology. 2017 Jul; 105 (Epub 2017 Apr 4. PMID: 28389263): 157-162
        • Many B.T.
        • Benyamen B.
        • Moeckel C.M.
        • Sarkar A.
        • Goldstein S.D.
        • Grabowski J.
        • et al.
        To wrap or not to wrap: a retrospective review of circumcision dressing and post-procedural bleeding.
        J Pediatr Surg. 2020 May 11; 3468 (S0022) (Epub ahead of print. PMID: 32593427): 30319-30325
        • Tuncer A.A.
        • Erten E.E.A.
        Examination of short and long term complications of thermocautery, plastic clamping, and surgical circumcision techniques.
        Pak J Med Sci. 2017 Nov-Dec; 33 (PMID: 29492070; PMCID: PMC5768836): 1418-1423
        • Özen M.A.
        • Gündoğdu G.
        • Taşdemir M.
        • Eroğlu E.
        Complication of newborn circumcision: meatal stenosis or meatal web?.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2017 Dec; 13 (Epub 2017 Jun 2. PMID: 28623142): 617.e1-617.e4
        • Naimer S.A.
        • Sivan B.
        Post circumcision corona obliteration.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2020 Jun; 16 (Epub 2020 Apr 21. PMID: 32417116): 389.e1-389.e5
        • Krill A.J.
        • Palmer L.S.
        • Palmer J.S.
        Complications of circumcision.
        Sci World J. 2011; 11: 2458-2468
        • Bawazir O.A.
        • Banaja A.M.
        Sutureless versus interrupted sutures techniques for neonatal circumcision; a randomized clinical trial.
        J Pediatr Urol. 2020 Aug; 16 (Epub 2020 Jun 25. PMID: 32665197): 493.e1-493.e6