Use of a disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision： a systematic review and meta-analysis
Use of a disposable circumcision suture device versus conventional circumcision： a systematic review and meta-analysis作者机构：Department of Urology People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Nanning 530021 Guangxi China Graduate School Guangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Nanning 530200 Guangxi China Department of Operating Room People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Nanning 530021 Guangxi China Research Center of Medical Sciences The People's Hospital of Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region Nannmg 530021 Guangxi China Graduate School North China University of Science and Technology Tangshan 063000 Hebei China
出 版 物：《Asian Journal of Andrology》 (亚洲男性学杂志（英文版）)
年 卷 期：2017年第19卷第3期
页 面：362-367页
核心收录：
基 金：supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Guangxi China
主 题：conventional circumcision disposable circumcision suture device meta-analysis phimosis redundant prepuce systematic review
摘 要：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.
维普期刊数据库