Comparison of NeoAlis™ disposable circumcision device and sleeve technique in circumcision: Results from a referral health-care center in Turkey. Issue 6 (December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Micoogullari, Uygar; Yildirim, Murat; Gol, Ismail Hakki; Cakici, Ozer Ural
• Is Part Of: Journal of pediatric urology. Volume 17:Issue 6(2021)
• Page Start: 856.e1
• Page End: 856.e10
• Publication Date: 2021-12
• Subjects: NeoAlis™ device -- Circumcision -- Sleeve -- Comparison -- Effectiveness; Pediatric urology -- Periodicals; Urologic Diseases -- Periodicals; Urogenital Diseases -- Periodicals; Urologic Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Child; Infant; Urologie pédiatrique -- Périodiques; Appareil urinaire -- Maladies -- Périodiques; Pédiatrie; Urologie; Pediatric urology; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 618.926
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2021.09.019
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1477-5131

Abstract

Summary: Background: 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. Results: 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. Discussion: 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. Conclusion: Mass circumcision performed with a plastic clamp technique is safe, timesaving, easily teachable, and cosmetically advantageous.