Journal Article
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

Plastic Clamp Versus Conventional Surgical Dissection Technique in Pediatric Circumcision: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Phimosis is a common condition of the urinary system in children and often requires surgical treatment. However, the optimal method of circumcision for children has not been determined. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the safety and effectiveness of plastic clamp with conventional surgical circumcision in pediatric circumcision.

METHODS: A literature search was carried out to compare the plastic clamp and conventional dissection technique in the pediatric population. The following search terms were used: "circumcision", "plastic clamp", "conventional", "plastibell", "children" and etc. Meta-analysis was used to pool and evaluate variables such as operative time, blood loss, wound infection, bleeding, edema, and total postoperative complications.

RESULTS: The plastic clamp technique (PCT) was used in 10,412 of the 17,325 participants in the nine studies, while the conventional surgical dissection technique (CST) was used on 6913 patients. When compared to the CST approach, the PCT approach resulted in shorter operative times (mean difference (MD) -17.48, 95% CI -22 to -12.96; P < 0.001), less blood loss (MD -4.25, 95% CI -7.75 to -0.77; P = 0.02), and a higher incidence of postoperative edema (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.34 to 4.08; P = 0.003). However, no significant difference was found in the incidence of postoperative complications, including wound infection and bleeding between PCT and CST.

CONCLUSIONS: PCT is a safe and time-saving option in the pediatric population. However, this method appeared to have a significant greater rate of postoperative edema.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app