{"title":"环形器械与经典包皮环切方法的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Yavuz Güler, Gökhun Çağdaş Özmerdiven, Akif Erbin","doi":"10.1080/2090598X.2022.2071545","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine the advantages and disadvantages of both methods by comparing classic circumcision methods with circumcision methods assisted by ring instruments.</p><p><strong>Material-methods: </strong>Only studies that compared open procedures and ring devices for male circumcision were included. A total of 6226 patients were examined in 14 studies. The methodological quality of RCT was evaluated using Cochrane collaboration's tools. The Review Manager software statistical package was used to analyze the ORs for dichotomous variables and the mean differences for continuous variables. The proportion of heterogeneity across the studies was tested using the I 2 index. Potential publication bias was assessed by identifying the presence of visual asymmetry/symmetry with funnel plot studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 1812 patients in the open circumcision group and 4414 patients in the ring groups. In total, there was no difference identified between the groups. The open procedure had an advantage compared to the Plastibell subgroup for hemorrhage, while in the other two subgroups, the ring instrument groups had the advantage. Statistically significant in favor of ring devices was found in operating time.There was no difference between the groups for early (postoperative) pain scores. For late-period pain scores, differences with statistical significance were identified in favor of ring devices both in subgroups and in total. For satisfaction, apart from one study in the PrePex group, statistical significance was obtained in favor of ring devices for the other subgroups and in total.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The main factors in favor of the use of ring instruments for circumcision are the short total surgical duration, not requiring advanced surgical experience, ease of learning and application, and patient relative satisfaction rates. However, it is a condition to know open circumcision methods and to have experience of this surgery for use in situations with hemorrhage complications, mainly, and without ring instruments of appropriate size.</p>","PeriodicalId":8113,"journal":{"name":"Arab Journal of Urology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9354637/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of ring instruments and classic circumcision methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Yavuz Güler, Gökhun Çağdaş Özmerdiven, Akif Erbin\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/2090598X.2022.2071545\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To determine the advantages and disadvantages of both methods by comparing classic circumcision methods with circumcision methods assisted by ring instruments.</p><p><strong>Material-methods: </strong>Only studies that compared open procedures and ring devices for male circumcision were included. A total of 6226 patients were examined in 14 studies. The methodological quality of RCT was evaluated using Cochrane collaboration's tools. The Review Manager software statistical package was used to analyze the ORs for dichotomous variables and the mean differences for continuous variables. The proportion of heterogeneity across the studies was tested using the I 2 index. Potential publication bias was assessed by identifying the presence of visual asymmetry/symmetry with funnel plot studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 1812 patients in the open circumcision group and 4414 patients in the ring groups. In total, there was no difference identified between the groups. The open procedure had an advantage compared to the Plastibell subgroup for hemorrhage, while in the other two subgroups, the ring instrument groups had the advantage. Statistically significant in favor of ring devices was found in operating time.There was no difference between the groups for early (postoperative) pain scores. For late-period pain scores, differences with statistical significance were identified in favor of ring devices both in subgroups and in total. For satisfaction, apart from one study in the PrePex group, statistical significance was obtained in favor of ring devices for the other subgroups and in total.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The main factors in favor of the use of ring instruments for circumcision are the short total surgical duration, not requiring advanced surgical experience, ease of learning and application, and patient relative satisfaction rates. However, it is a condition to know open circumcision methods and to have experience of this surgery for use in situations with hemorrhage complications, mainly, and without ring instruments of appropriate size.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8113,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Arab Journal of Urology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9354637/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Arab Journal of Urology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2022.2071545\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arab Journal of Urology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2090598X.2022.2071545","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of ring instruments and classic circumcision methods: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Aim: To determine the advantages and disadvantages of both methods by comparing classic circumcision methods with circumcision methods assisted by ring instruments.
Material-methods: Only studies that compared open procedures and ring devices for male circumcision were included. A total of 6226 patients were examined in 14 studies. The methodological quality of RCT was evaluated using Cochrane collaboration's tools. The Review Manager software statistical package was used to analyze the ORs for dichotomous variables and the mean differences for continuous variables. The proportion of heterogeneity across the studies was tested using the I 2 index. Potential publication bias was assessed by identifying the presence of visual asymmetry/symmetry with funnel plot studies.
Results: There were 1812 patients in the open circumcision group and 4414 patients in the ring groups. In total, there was no difference identified between the groups. The open procedure had an advantage compared to the Plastibell subgroup for hemorrhage, while in the other two subgroups, the ring instrument groups had the advantage. Statistically significant in favor of ring devices was found in operating time.There was no difference between the groups for early (postoperative) pain scores. For late-period pain scores, differences with statistical significance were identified in favor of ring devices both in subgroups and in total. For satisfaction, apart from one study in the PrePex group, statistical significance was obtained in favor of ring devices for the other subgroups and in total.
Conclusion: The main factors in favor of the use of ring instruments for circumcision are the short total surgical duration, not requiring advanced surgical experience, ease of learning and application, and patient relative satisfaction rates. However, it is a condition to know open circumcision methods and to have experience of this surgery for use in situations with hemorrhage complications, mainly, and without ring instruments of appropriate size.
期刊介绍:
The Arab Journal of Urology is a peer-reviewed journal that strives to provide a high standard of research and clinical material to the widest possible urological community worldwide. The journal encompasses all aspects of urology including: urological oncology, urological reconstructive surgery, urodynamics, female urology, pediatric urology, endourology, transplantation, erectile dysfunction, and urinary infections and inflammations. The journal provides reviews, original articles, editorials, surgical techniques, cases reports and correspondence. Urologists, oncologists, pathologists, radiologists and scientists are invited to submit their contributions to make the Arab Journal of Urology a viable international forum for the practical, timely and state-of-the-art clinical urology and basic urological research.