Plastibell circumcision: Comparison between neonates and infants.
Circumcision
Plastibell
complications
Journal
Urology annals
ISSN: 0974-7796
Titre abrégé: Urol Ann
Pays: India
ID NLM: 101510823
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Historique:
received:
21
10
2019
revised:
21
02
2020
accepted:
06
03
2020
entrez:
29
3
2021
pubmed:
30
3
2021
medline:
30
3
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Plastibell circumcision technique has gained popularity worldwide. It has a low bleeding risk which makes it suitable for a vulnerable population and in late circumcision. However, several problems resulting from prolonged retention of the Plastibell ring were reported. The objectives of this study were to assess the outcomes of circumcision performed using Plastibell devices, report ring-related complications, and compare the complications of the technique between neonates and infants. This was a retrospective cohort study that was conducted in a total of 989 male neonates and infants who had Plastibell circumcision performed by a single surgeon between June 2006 and February 2018. Postoperative complications were reported and compared between the two age groups. The indications of the Plastibell technique were religious in 988 patients and urinary tract infection in 1 patient. During the study period, Plastibell circumcision was performed in 633 neonates and 356 infants. The average ages of neonates and infants were 14 ± 2 days and 3 ± 0.5 months, respectively. Complications developed in 89 cases, 4.4% in neonates and 17% in infants ( Complications of Plastibell circumcision are significantly higher in infants than in neonates, and ring retention is the most common complication in both the groups. However, the risk of severe hemorrhage is low making it a good option for infants in the outpatient setting.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Plastibell circumcision technique has gained popularity worldwide. It has a low bleeding risk which makes it suitable for a vulnerable population and in late circumcision. However, several problems resulting from prolonged retention of the Plastibell ring were reported.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
The objectives of this study were to assess the outcomes of circumcision performed using Plastibell devices, report ring-related complications, and compare the complications of the technique between neonates and infants.
METHODS
METHODS
This was a retrospective cohort study that was conducted in a total of 989 male neonates and infants who had Plastibell circumcision performed by a single surgeon between June 2006 and February 2018. Postoperative complications were reported and compared between the two age groups. The indications of the Plastibell technique were religious in 988 patients and urinary tract infection in 1 patient.
RESULTS
RESULTS
During the study period, Plastibell circumcision was performed in 633 neonates and 356 infants. The average ages of neonates and infants were 14 ± 2 days and 3 ± 0.5 months, respectively. Complications developed in 89 cases, 4.4% in neonates and 17% in infants (
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Complications of Plastibell circumcision are significantly higher in infants than in neonates, and ring retention is the most common complication in both the groups. However, the risk of severe hemorrhage is low making it a good option for infants in the outpatient setting.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33776331
doi: 10.4103/UA.UA_146_19
pii: UA-12-347
pmc: PMC7992528
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
347-351Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2020 Urology Annals.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
There are no conflicts of interest.
Références
World J Clin Pediatr. 2017 Feb 8;6(1):89-102
pubmed: 28224100
Glob Public Health. 2018 May;13(5):626-641
pubmed: 27194404
Urology. 2015 Apr;85(4):799-804
pubmed: 25711156
Pediatr Surg Int. 2019 May;35(5):619-623
pubmed: 30761427
Pediatrics. 2000 Jan;105(1 Pt 3):246-9
pubmed: 10617731
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013 Apr 15;62(5):e131-7
pubmed: 23314413
Pan Afr Med J. 2016 Feb 09;23:35
pubmed: 27200140
Int Braz J Urol. 2009 May-Jun;35(3):310-3; discussion 313-4
pubmed: 19538766
BMJ. 2010 Aug 17;341:c4266
pubmed: 20716601
BMC Urol. 2006 Aug 25;6:21
pubmed: 16934157
PLoS One. 2019 Mar 11;14(3):e0213399
pubmed: 30856228
Afr J Paediatr Surg. 2014 Apr-Jun;11(2):179-83
pubmed: 24841023
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2010 Apr;92(3):261-2
pubmed: 20425891
Pak J Med Sci. 2016 Mar-Apr;32(2):347-50
pubmed: 27182237
J Surg Tech Case Rep. 2013 Jan;5(1):1-7
pubmed: 24470842
Adv Urol. 2008;:606123
pubmed: 19009030
BMC Pediatr. 2012 Feb 28;12:20
pubmed: 22373281
Br Med J. 1965 Jul 31;2(5456):273-5
pubmed: 14310205
Biomed Res Int. 2017;2017:4957348
pubmed: 28194416
Lancet. 1998 Dec 5;352(9143):1813-6
pubmed: 9851381
Pediatr Surg Int. 2007 Jan;23(1):45-8
pubmed: 17024296
Paediatr Child Health. 2015 Aug-Sep;20(6):311-20
pubmed: 26435672
J Pediatr Urol. 2010 Feb;6(1):28-31
pubmed: 19525148
J Pediatr Urol. 2010 Feb;6(1):23-7
pubmed: 19570722
Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2018 Sep-Oct;12(5):10-13
pubmed: 30202402