Circumcision with plastibell device

Authors

  • Sheikh Mahmood Ali Department of General Surgery, KBNIMS, Kalburgi, Karnataka
  • Nafees Alrahman Medicure Hospital, Bangalore, Karnataka

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20150944

Keywords:

Circumcision, Plastibell device

Abstract

Background: In Muslims and Jews circumcision is common. Most of the time it is on religious ground. Circumcision involving plastibell device is less frequently employed. The aim of this study was to know the effectiveness of plastibell circumcision in children of younger than 2 years.

Methods: It was a prospective study conducted from January 2014 to march 2015 at KBN Teaching Hospital and in private hospital. All the babies with age ranging from few days to two years who underwent circumcision using plastibell device, as a day case procedure were included in the study. Patients were followed up for one month in order to note the complications and final outcome of circumcision.

Results: Circumcision using plastibell device was performed in 170 babies. 80 were neonates and 90 babies were above one month and below two year. Significantly fewer complications were noted in neonate compare to older babies.

Conclusions: Circumcision using plastibell device is safe and easy method especially in younger age group with lesser complication rate.

References

Drain PK, Halperin DT, Hugas JP, Klausner JD, Bailey RC. Male circumcision religion and infectious diseases: an ecological analysis of 118 developing countries. BMC Infect Dis. 2006;172:1-10.

Yagane R.A, Kheirollahi AR, Salahi NA, Bashashati M, Khoshdel JA, Ahmadi M. Late complications of circumcision in Iran. Paedriatic Surgery International. 2006;22:442-5.

Punyaratabandhu P, Supanvinich S, Tiraput C, Podhipak A. Epidemiological study of risk factors in cervix uteri in Thai women. J Med Assoc Thailand. 1982;65:231-5.

Dhar GM, Shah GN, Naheed , Hafiza, Epidemiological trends in the distribution of cancers in Kashmir valley. J Epidemiology Community Health. 1993;47:292-4.

Peng YF, Cheng Y, Wang GY, at al. Clinical implication of new device for minimally invasive circumcision. Asian J Andorlogy. 2008;10:447-54.

Christakis DA, Harvey E, Zerr MD , Feudtner C, Wright JA, Connel FA. A trade–off analysis of routine newborn circumcision. Pediatrics. 2000;105:246-9.

Mak YLM, Cho SC, Fai MW. Childhood circumcision; conventional dissection or plastibell device: a prospective randomized trial. The Hong Kong Practitioner. 1995;17:101-5.

Fraser IA, Allen MJ, Bagshaw PF. A randomized trial to assess childhood circumcision with the plastibell device compare to CDM. British J Surg.

Homan JR, Stussi KA. Adult circumcion. American Family Physician. 1999;59:1514-8.

Okiki Lee, Asinobi AA, Ikuerowe. Epidemiology of complications of male circumcision in Ibadan, Niageria. BMC Urology. 2006;6:1-3.

Essid A, Hamzou M, Sahli S, Hoisa T. Glans reimplantation after circumcision accident. Progress en Urologie. 2005;15:745-7.

Sharman J, Borer JG, Horowitz M, Glessberg KL. Circumcision: successful glanular reconstruction and survival following traumatic amputation. The Journal of Urology. 1996;156(suppl).

Baskin LS, Canning DA, Snder HM, Ducket TJW. Surgical repair of urethral circumcision injuries. J Urology. 1997;158:2269-71.

Mousavi SA, Salehifar E. Circumcision complications associated with plastibell device and CDS: a trial of 586 infants. Advances in Urology. 2005;208:1004-8.

Downloads

Published

2016-12-14

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles