Süleyman Cüneyt KARAKUŞ, Alev SÜZEN, Nazile ERTÜRK

Circumcision with plastic Alisclamp technique in 4733 boys: our experiences to reduce complications

Background/aim: We aim to report the outcomes of circumcisions performed with Alisclamp and our experiences to reduce the complications. Material and methods: Complications among circumcised males with Alisclamp between 2015 and 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 (n = 1429); patients circumcised in 2015–2016 and Group 2 (n = 3304); patients circumcised in 2017–2018. The different technical approaches in Group 2 are as follows: 1) Prevention of bleeding: In Group 2, we didn’t pull the ventral prepuce to reduce the risk of frenulum injury and the foreskin was excised approximately 1–2 mm above the base. 2) Prevention of secondary phimosis: In Group 2, regular manual pressure had been applied to mons pubis and we postponed some of the overweight children’s circumcision. 3) Prevention of excessive foreskin: The clamp was placed carefully to prevent the glans from moving back and forth. Results: Secondary phimosis was significantly lower in Group 2 (p = 0.003). Total bleeding and bleeding requiring suturing were significantly lower in Group 2 (p = 0.001 and p = 0.026, respectively). Conclusion: Technique-specific complications of Alisclamp can reduce with technique-specific modifications.Key words: Circumcision, Alisclamp, complications, secondary phimosis, bleeding

PDF

___

1. Peng M, Meng Z, Yang ZH, Wang XH. The ultrasonic harmonic scalpel for circumcision: experimental evaluation using dogs. Asian Journal of Andrology 2013; 15 (1): 93-96. doi: 10.1038/ aja.2012.67
2. Male circumcision. American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Pediatrics 2012; 130 (3): 756-785. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-1990
3. Şenel FM, Demirelli M, Pekcan H. Mass circumcision with a novel plastic clamp technique. Urology 2011; 78 (1): 174-179. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2010.12.018
4. Şenel FM, Demirelli M, Öztek S. Minimally invasive circumcision with a novel plastic clamp technique: a review of 7,500 cases. Pediatric Surgery International 2010; 26 (7): 739- 745 doi: 10.1007/s00383-010-2632-3
5. Karaman MI, Zülfikar B, Öztürk MI, Koca O, Akyüz M et al. Circumcision in bleeding disorders: improvement of our cost effective method with diathermic knife. Urology Journal 2014; 11 (2): 1406-1410.
6. Cox G, Morris BJ. Why circumcision: from prehistory to the twenty-first century. Surgical Guide to Circumcision 2012; 5: 243-259.
7. Aldemir M, Çakan M, Burgu B. Circumcision with a new disposable clamp: is it really easier and more reliable? International Urology and Nephrology 2008; 40 (2): 377-381.
8. Kidger EA, Haider N, Qazi A. Acquired phimosis after plastibell circumcision: a preventable consequence. Annals of the Royal Collage of Surgeons of England 2012; 94 (6): 186- 188. doi: 10.1308/003588412X13373405384774
9. Özdemir T, Sayan A, Candan B, Orhan G, Köylüoğlu G. Secondary phimosis after circumcision. Turkish Journal of Urology 2019; 45 (2): 135-138. doi: 10.5152/tud.2018.94984
10. Krill AJ, Palmer LS, Palmer JS. Complications of circumcision. Scientific World Journal 2011; 11: 2458-2468. doi: 10.1100/2011/373829
11. Fariz MM, Tarmizi MN, Ainaini MH, Khairil AM, Faizal A et al. Prospective randomised comparison of bipolar diathermy versus conventional dorsal slit technique for ritual circumcision: a Malaysian experience. La Clinica Terapeutica 2011; 162 (6): 543-545.
12. Karadağ MA, Cecen K, Demir A, Kivrak Y, Bağcıoglu M et al. Smart Clamp circumcision versus conventional dissection technique in terms of parental anxiety and outcomes: a prospective clinical study. Canadian Urological Association Journal 2015; 9 (1-2): E10-13. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.2131