Bone cutter versus plastibell device in neonatal circumcision: A randomized trial

Authors

  • Ademola Olusegun Talabi Department of Surgery, Obafemi Awolowo University/Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria
  • Gabriel Unimke Udie Division of Paediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria
  • Oludayo Adedapo Sowande Division of Paediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria
  • Owolabi Oni Division of Paediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria
  • Olusanya Adejuyigbe Division of Paediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.47338/jns.v9.549

Keywords:

Bone cutter, Plastibell, Circumcision, Neonate

Abstract

Background: Several techniques and devices have been described for circumcision each with its own pros and cons. The objective of this study was to compare the outcome of neonatal circumcision between bone-cutter and plastibell devices at our institution.

Methods: This is a randomized trial (unregistered) conducted at the Pediatric Surgical Unit of a tertiary teaching hospital situated in a semi-urban setting, between January 2019 and December 2019. The uncircumcised neonates underwent circumcision by either bone-cutter or plastibell device. Demographic characteristics, operative time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative complications were compared. A p-value of <0.05 was considered significant.

Results: The age ranged between 7 days and 30 days with a mean of 15.9±5.5 days. The mean age and weight of both groups were well matched (p >0.05). The operative time in the bone cutter technique was 4.2±0.9 minutes compared to 5.8±1.2 minutes in the plastibell device method (p <0.001). Blood loss was lesser with bone cutter (0.27 ±0.32mls versus 0.51 ±0.44mls in the plastibell device, p <0.001). The complication rates were comparable in both study groups (p =1.000). The overall complication rate was 5.8%. The penile perception score and the Hollander wound evaluation score for bone-cutter were 15.7±0.8 and 5.7±0.84 while in the plastibell device were 15.4±1.1 and 5.4±1.1, respectively (p >0.05).

Conclusion: Operative time and blood loss were less with bone cutter compared to plastibell device. However, the complication rate, penile perception score, and Hollander wound evaluation scores were similar.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Author Biography

Ademola Olusegun Talabi, Department of Surgery, Obafemi Awolowo University/Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospitals Complex, Ile-Ife, Osun State, Nigeria

SENIOR LECTURER, DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY

References

WHO/UNAIDS. Male circumcision: global trends and determinants prevalence, safety and acceptability. WHO 2008. Available from: https://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/rtis/9789241596169/en/

Weiss H A, Larke N, Halperin D, Schenker I. Complications of circumcision in male neonates, infants and children: a systematic review. BMC Urol. 2010; 10:2.

Johnson PRV. Childhood circumcision. Surg. 2008; 26:314-6.

Gerharz EW, Haarmann C. The first cut is the deepest? Medicolegal aspects of male circumcision. BJU Int. 2000; 86:332-8.

Okeke LI, Asinobi AA, Ikuerowo OS. Epidemiology of complications of male circumcision in Ibadan, Nigeria. BMC Urol. 2006; 6:21.

Oliver BL, Stephen CR. Circumcision. In Holcomb III C W, Murphy J P, Ostlie D J. Ashcraft’s Paediatric Surgery, 2010, Elsevier, Saunders, New York. 60; 810-5.

Daniel S, Bode C, Ashish D. Circumcision. In Ameh A E, Bickler S W, Lakhoo K, Nwomeh B C, Poenaru D. Paediatric surgery: A comprehensive text for Africa. Global HELP organization, Seattle, 2012, 95: 554-9.

Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, Makumbi F, Watya S, Malugoda F, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men, Rakai, Uganda: a randomized trial. Lancet. 2007; 369:657-66.

Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, Agot K, Maclean I, Krieger JN, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomized control trial. Lancet. 2007; 369:643-56.

Cathcart P, Nuttall M, Van der Meulen J, Emberton M, Kenny SE. Trends in paediatric circumcision and complications in England between 1997 and 2003. Br J Surg. 2006; 93:885-90.

Daling JR, Madeleine MM, Johnson LG, Schwatz SM, Shera KA, Wursher MA, et al. Importance of circumcision, human papillomavirus, and smoking in insitu and invasive disease. Inter J Cancer. 2005; 116:606-16.

Larke NL, Thomas SL, dos Santos Silva I, Weiss HA. Male circumcision and penile cancer: a systematic review and meta – analysis. Cancer Causes and Control. 2011; 22:1097-1110.

Salle JLP, Jesus LE, Lerenzo AJ, Romao RLP, Figueroa VH, Bagli DH, et al. Glans amputation during routine neonatal circumcision. Mechanism of injury and strategy of prevention. J Pediatr Urol. 2013; 9:763-8.

Bennett J, Breen C, Traverso H, Bano Agha J, Macia J, Boring J. Circumcision and neonatal tetanus: disclosure risk and its reduction by topical antibiotics. Inter J Epid. 1999; 28:263-6.

Young H. Evolution of Circumcision Methods: Not “Just a Snip”. In: Genital Cutting: Protecting Children from Medical, Cultural, and Religious Infringements 2013; Springer, Dordrecht: pp. 69-83.

Abdulwahab-Ahmed A, Mungadi IA. Techniques of male circumcision. J Surg Tech Case Rep. 2013; 5:1-7.

Ekwunife OH, Ugwu JO, Okoli CC, Modekwe VI, Osuigwe AN. Afr J Paediatr Surg. 2015; 12:251-6.

Bode CO, Ademuyiwa OA, Elebute OA, Ikhisemojie SO, Adesanya OA. Preferred methods of neonatal circumcision among mothers in Lagos, Nigeria. J West Afr Coll Surg. 2011; 1:29 37.

Ikhisemojie SO, Ademuyiwa AO, Bode CO, Mofikoya BO. Is the plastibell of any haemostatic value after 24 h? Afr J Paediatr Surg. 2017; 14:5-7.

Khari A, El-kholi N, Tolba M, Ismail T, Dwaba M, Hafez M, et al. Plastibell circumcision; evaluation of a technique in 800 cases. Egyptian J Surg. 2005; 24:1.

Moosa FA, Khan FW, Rao MH. Comparison of complications of circumcision by ‘plastibell device technique’ in male neonates and infants. J Pak Med Assoc. 2010; 60:664-7.

Kamil M, Albadri J. Bone cutter circumcision in neonates. Al-kindy Col Med J. 2012, 8:119.

Mehmood T, Azam H, Tariq M, Iqbal Z, Mehmood H, Shah SAH. Plastibell device circumcision versus bone cutter technique in terms of operative outcomes and parents’ satisfaction. Pak J Med Sci. 2016; 32:347-50.

Weber DM, Schonbucher VB, Landolt MA, Gobet R. The paediatric penile perception score: An instrument for patient’s self-assessment and surgeon’s evaluation after hypospadias repair. J Urol. 2008; 180:1080-4.

Hollander JE, Singer AJ, Valentine S, Henry MC. Wound registry: Development and validation. Ann Emer Med. 1995; 25:675-85.

Abdur-Rahman LO, Nasir AA, Adeniran JO. Circumcision: Perspective in a Nigerian teaching hospital. Afr J Paed Surg. 2013; 10:271-4.

Sowande OA, Adejuyigbe O. Circumcision mishaps: A continuing challenge in the developing countries. East and Central Afr J Surg. 2009; 14:109-13.

Abdullah LB, Mohammad AM, Anjanwu LJC, Farinyaro AU. Outcome of male circumcision: A comparison between plastibell and dorsal slit methods. Nig J Basic Clin Sci. 2018; 15:5-8.

Moinuddin M, Shinde N, Devani R, Ahmad A. Comparison of plastibell circumcision with conventional circumcision in infants at the tertiary care center. Asian J Research Surg. 2018; 1:1-7.

Bawazir OA. A controlled trial of Gomco versus plastibell for neonatal circumcisions in Saudi Arabia. Int J Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2019; 7:132-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpam.2019.03.002.

Duncan ND, Dundas SE, Brown B, Pinnock-Ramsaran C, Badal G. Newborn circumcision using the plastibell device: An audit of practice. West Indian Med J. 2004; 53:23-6.

Jimoh BM, Odunayo IS, Chinwe I, Akinfolarin OO, Oluwafemi A. Plastibell circumcision of 2276 male infants: a multi-center study. Pan African Med J. 2016; 23:35.

Mousavi SA, Saleifar E. Circumcision complications associated with the plastibell device and conventional dissection surgery: A trial 586 infants of ages up to 12 months. Adv Urol. 2008; 2008:606123.

Lazarus J, Alexander A, Rode H. Circumcision complications associated with the plastibell device. South Afr Med J. 2007; 97:192-3.

Mahamat MA, Ngueringem O, Jalloh M, Nour M, Valentin V, Sylvain O, et al. Complications of circumcision: A three-year experience in N’djamena mother and child hospital (Chad). OJU. 2016; 6:55-62.

Mak YLM, Cho SC, Fai MW. Childhood circumcision: Conventional dissection or plastibell device – a prospective randomized trial. Hong Kong Practitioner. 1995; 17:101-5.

Makhlouf GA, Kootb MB. Bone cutting and heat cautery circumcision. Egypt J Surg. 2015; 34:258-60.

Hussain Z, Bashir RA. Circumcision by bone cutter- is it safe? Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2015; 65:248-50.

Rasool N. Incidence of complications in plastibell circumcision in male infants: Comparison between with and without coagulation hemostasis methods. J Surg and Surg Res. 2017; 3:034-7. DOI: http://doi.org/10.17352/2455-2968.000042

Gadhvi AS, Galani KJ, Trivedi BA. Comparison between two methods of circumcision-convention (dorsal slit and excision) vs guillotine. J Evolution Med Dental Sci. 2018; 7:3448.

Anjum S, Shakir H, Arif A, Ahmed J. Childhood circumcision, indications, and complications. APMC. 2012; 6:171-4.

Malik S, Ahmad Z, Shahid M, Bashir RA. Comparison of post circumcision complications and wound healing in neonates and infants by plastibell method. Pak Armed Forces Med J. 2019; 69:1263-6.

Freeman JJ, Spencer AU, Drongowski RA, Vandeven CJM, Apgar B, Teitelbaum DH. Newborn circumcision outcomes: Are parents satisfied with the results? Pediatr Surg Int. 2013; 30:333-8.

Published

2020-11-01

How to Cite

1.
Talabi AO, Udie GU, Sowande OA, Oni O, Adejuyigbe O. Bone cutter versus plastibell device in neonatal circumcision: A randomized trial. J Neonatal Surg [Internet]. 2020Nov.1 [cited 2020Nov.27];9:24. Available from: https://www.jneonatalsurg.com/ojs/index.php/jns/article/view/549

Issue

Section

Original Article