Summary
Greater than 20 surgical circumcision devices are available worldwide for male circumcision.
These have been developed so as to decrease complications. The hemostasis system classifies
these devices as crush, clamp or ligature. This study assessed the safety, acceptability,
and feasibility of male neonatal circumcision using the Alisklamp device (AKD). The
AKD is one of the latest medical devices designed for assisted circumcision. It takes
less time to install, has a better complication rate, and has a better cosmetic appearance
than conventional surgical circumcision.
The study was divided into two sections: assessing the safety of the AKD and evaluating
parents' satisfaction. Convenience sampling was used in this study. In the first section,
a form was filled by operating pediatric surgeon for children whose parents agreed
to participate in the study. In the second section, a total of 100 male children were
included in the study based on the sample size guidelines of the World Health Organization.
The circumcision was performed by an experienced pediatric surgeon following the manufacturer's
instructions.
The procedures were completed without AKD failure or unwelcome preputial loss. The
results showed that 63.54% of the children were circumcised in their first four weeks
of life. About 60.42% of the procedures were completed within 5–10 min. Also, 95.83%
of the children had no postoperative complications. Further, 90.63% of parents were
satisfied with the AKD and willing to recommend it to others. During the follow-up,
all of the children's parents were pleased with the cosmetic and final results of
the AKD.
Summary table
| Variables | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Pain relievers (Two doses or less) | 69.79 |
| No Short- or long-term consequences | 94.79 |
| General appearance of the penis (very good and good) | 85.42 |
| Overall satisfaction | 90.63 |
| Future recommendation for AKD | 91.67 |
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-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:
Subscribe to Journal of Pediatric UrologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Benefits of male circumcision for MSM: evidence for action.Lancet Global Health. Apr. 2019; 7: e388-e389https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30038-5
“Newborn circumcision techniques.” https://medworm.com/793966516/newborn-circumcision-techniques/(accessed Feb. 07, 2022).
- Prepucioplasty for hooded foreskin.Norm. Abnorm. Prepuce. 2020; : 109-124https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37621-5_12
- Voluntary medical male circumcision in resource-constrained settings.Nat Rev Urol. Dec. 2015; 12: 661-670https://doi.org/10.1038/NRUROL.2015.253
- Male circumcision for prevention of homosexual acquisition of HIV in men.Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Jun. 2011; 6https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007496.PUB2
- Emerging adults' perceptions of male circumcision in the United States: facts, fictions, and future plans.Am J Sex Educ. Apr. 2020; 15: 180-200https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2020.1737290
- Can devices for adult male circumcision help bridge the implementation gap for HIV prevention services?.J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. Dec. 2011; 58: 506-508https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0B013E318237AF5D
- Muslim mothers mainly saw circumcision in terms of religion or tradition but wanted it to be carried out medical professionals.Acta Paediatr. Feb. 2020; 109: 396-403https://doi.org/10.1111/APA.15105
- Comparison of the efficacy and safety of circumcision by freehand technique and Plastibell device in children.Afr J Urol. Dec. 2020; 26: 1-7https://doi.org/10.1186/S12301-020-00076-Z/TABLES/5
“Framework for clinical evaluation of devices for male circumcision.” https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241504355 (accessed Feb. 07, 2022).
- The safety profile and acceptability of a disposable male circumcision device in Kenyan men undergoing voluntary medical male circumcision.J Urol. Nov 2011; 186: 1923-1927https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JURO.2011.07.027
- The PrePex device is unlikely to achieve cost-savings compared to the forceps-guided method in male circumcision programs in sub-saharan Africa.PLoS One. Jan. 2013; 8https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0053380
- A comparative study on the clinical efficacy of modified circumcision and two other types of circumcision.Urol J. Sep. 2020; 18: 556-560https://doi.org/10.22037/UJ.V16I7.6193
- Safety and efficacy of the prepex male circumcision device: results from pilot implementation studies in Mozambique, South Africa, and Zambia.J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016; 72: S43-S48https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000000742
- Novel devices for adolescent and adult male circumcision.Eur. Urol. Focus. Apr. 2018; 4: 329-332https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EUF.2018.06.015
- Evaluation and management of adult acquired buried penis.Transl Androl Urol. 2018; 7: 618https://doi.org/10.21037/TAU.2018.05.06
- Complications of circumcision.Sci World J. 2011; 11: 2458https://doi.org/10.1100/2011/373829
- Examination of short and long term complications of thermocautery, plastic clamping, and surgical circumcision techniques.Pakistan J Med Sci. Nov 2017; 33: 1418https://doi.org/10.12669/PJMS.336.13640
Article info
Publication history
Published online: September 26, 2022
Accepted:
September 14,
2022
Received in revised form:
August 24,
2022
Received:
June 29,
2021
Publication stage
In Press Journal Pre-ProofIdentification
Copyright
© 2022 Journal of Pediatric Urology Company. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
