Table of Contents  
INVITED COMMENTARY
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 917

Circumcision standards: can we improve further?


Consultant Urological Surgeon, Western General Hospital, Honorary Lecturer for Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

Date of Web Publication30-Oct-2014

Correspondence Address:
Roland Donat
Consultant Urological Surgeon, Western General Hospital, Honorary Lecturer for Edinburgh University, Edinburgh
United Kingdom
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1008-682X.133328

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Donat R. Circumcision standards: can we improve further?. Asian J Androl 2014;16:917

How to cite this URL:
Donat R. Circumcision standards: can we improve further?. Asian J Androl [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Oct 14];16:917. Available from: http://www.ajandrology.com/text.asp?2014/16/6/917/133328 - DOI: 10.4103/1008-682X.133328

Lv et al. [1] present a newly designed disposable circumcision device. The device cuts the foreskin and closes the skin edges with staples simultaneously. Their results suggest a fast operating time, low complication rate, and high patient satisfaction. This device is easy to operate and can be used with local anesthesia alone. In an age when several African countries consider mass circumcision to reduce HIV transmission rates, [2],[3] physicians have been looking for a simple and safe circumcision method that can easily be taught to others. Provided the results can be replicated by others, this device appears to be an ideal tool for adult mass circumcisions. It has the distinct advantage over the Shang Ring and other penile clamps of immediately removing the skin and the device rather than leaving the ring and await subsequent skin necrosis and healing. In this study, the Shang Ring resulted in higher postoperative pain scores. The cost and general availability for the device have not been discussed and may potentially be a limiting factor for some health services. The device is also not suitable for patients with foreskin adhesions or a buried penis, who will continue to need surgical skills and a manual circumcision.

Secondly, there is a novel approach to the circumcision anesthetic using 5% lidocaine cream alone rather than a penile block with 10 ml 2% lidocaine injection. Patients given 5% lidocaine cream alone had less intraoperative pain than those receiving an injection. However, other variables such as shorter surgical times with the device and technique and volume of the lignocaine injection may have influenced intraoperative pain levels. In my own practice, I use a mixture of 10 ml 1% lidocaine, 10 ml 0.5% bupivacaine, and 10 ml normal saline. A volume of 20 ml is injected as penile block and ring block, leaving 10 ml in the rare case of residual discomfort. Using this technique my patients are usually completely pain free during surgery. However, the idea of anesthesia with cream alone will certainly appeal more to patients than an injection. A further prospective study comparing anesthesia with lidocaine cream versus injection to clarify the suitability and benefit of surface analgesia alone for standard circumcision is required.

Thirdly, the concept of measuring healing time is introduced, which raises the interesting question of objectively defining when a wound is healed and whether this can be assessed on a daily basis. Skin edge healing was quicker when a healthy skin edge was left using a ring-shaped blade compared to skin edges with thermal injury from electrocautery incision or healing following pressure necrosis. * Intuitively this makes sense. In the United Kingdom, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence also advises against skin incisions with electrocautery on grounds of increased infection rates. [4]

Despite these limitations, the new device is an exciting development and high patient satisfaction combined with low complication rates commend its further use, ideally with additional prospective data collection to confirm its benefits further.

Competing Interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Note:

* The authors have taken weekly measurement on weeks 1, 2, and 4. By omitting week 3, this may have skewed the results toward showing a larger time difference than might have been recorded otherwise.

 
  References Top

1.Lv BD, Zhang SG, Zhu XW, Zhang J, Chen G, et al. Disposable circumcision suture device: clinical effect and patient satisfaction. Asian J Androl 2014; 16: 453-6.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Male Circumcision: global Trends and Determinants of Prevalence, Safety and Acceptability. Geneva: World Health Organization and Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS; 2007.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Progress in Scale-Up of Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention in Eastern and Southern Africa. Focus on Service Delivery. Geneva: World Health Organization and Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS; 2011.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.Available from: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG74NICEGuideline.pdf.  Back to cited text no. 4
    




 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1068    
    Printed17    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded242    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]