Comparative analysis on the outcomes in circumcising children using modified Chinese ShangRing and conventional surgical circumcision - PubMed

Objective: To compare the differences and outcomes of surgical procedures, clinical effect, complications and patients' satisfaction between disposable oval-shaped circumcision device (Modified Chinese ShangRing series, Kiddie love^®) and conventional circumcision in the treatment of children with phimosis or redundant prepuce.

Methods: The clinical data were retrospectively analyzed in 114 children with phimosis or redundant foreskin undergone circumcision using a disposable oval-shaped circumcision device, a modified Chinese ShangRing series, Kiddie Love^® (Kiddie Love group) in our hospital between January 2018 and February 2020, and another 114 children with similar conditions circumcised by conventional surgical procedure before January 2018 (conventional group). The two groups were compared regarding the operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pain scores, healing time, the incidence of complications and guardian's satisfaction.

Results: Circumcision was successfully completed in children in both groups. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pain scoring in 24 h by VAS, pain at the removal of the device or stitches and wound healing were (6.4 ± 1.6) min, (34.1 ± 6.4) min; (0.7 ± 0.2) ml, (2.6 ± 0.6) ml; (2.2 ± 1.0) points, (1.3 ± 0.5) points; (23.7 ± 3.9)day, (15.9 ± 2.8)day, respectively for Kiddie Love group and conventional group(either P < 0.05 or P > 0.05). The two groups were significantly different in the incidence of hematoma, edema and incision dehiscenceyet were insignificant in incision infection. Children in both groups were followed up from 6 to 31 months (mean: 23 months), and the satisfaction rate was 94.7% (108/114) in parents of the children circumcised by the ShangRing and 83.3% (95/114) in those of children treated by conventional circumcision (P < 0.05).

Conclusion: Modified Chinese ShangRing, Kiddie Love^®, has superiorities, including simpler procedure, shorter operative time, less blood loss, fewer complications, better cosmetic results and higher satisfaction of patients over conventional circumcision in the treatment of children with phimosis or redundant foreskin, and worthy of wider clinical recommendation.

1. 1. Dongjun L, Kangning Q, Huiqing K (2018) Comparison between disposable circumcision anastomosis device and traditional surgery [J]. Chin Health Care Nutr (Article in Chinese) 28(6):50
2. 1. Morris BJ, Wiswell TE (2013) Circumcision and lifetime risk of urinary tract infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. J Urol 189(6):2118–2124 - DOI - PubMed
3. 1. Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB et al (2007) Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men inkisumu, Kenya: a randomized controlled trial Lancet [J]. Natl J Androl 228(9):643–656
4. 1. Morris BJ, Wamai RG (2012) Biological basis for the protective effect conferred by male circumcision against HIV infection. Int J STD AIDS 23:153 - DOI - PubMed
5. 1. Wei H, Shengli M, Zhanlin Y, Ling M, Hanyan L, Liquan H (2013) Detection of herpes simplex virus type 2 and human papillomavirus in foreskin [J]. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese) 9(1):70–71