PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
A meta-analysis investigation was executed to measure the wound healing rates (WHRs) and wound problems (WPs) of conventional circumcision (CC) compared with ring circumcision (RC). A comprehensive literature investigation till March 2023 was applied and 2347 interrelated investigations were reviewed. The 16 chosen investigations enclosed 25 838 individuals, with circumcision, were in the chosen investigations\' starting point, 3252 of them were RC, and 2586 were CC. Odds ratio (OR) in addition to 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compute the value of the WHRs and WPs of CC compared with RC by the dichotomous or continuous approaches and a fixed or random model. RC had a significantly lower wound infection rate (WIR) (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.91, P = .002) and wound bleeding rate (WBR) (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.12-0.42, P < .001) compared with those with CC. However, RC and CC had no significant difference in WHR (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, -0.73 to 5.09, P = .14), wound edema rate (WER) (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.92-1.33, P = .28), and wound dehiscence rate (WDR) (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.60-1.58, P = .93). RC had significantly lower WIR, and WBR, however, no significant difference in WHR, WER, and WDR compared with those with CC. However, care must be exercised when dealing with its values because of the low sample size of some of the nominated investigations for the meta-analysis.
摘要：
进行了荟萃分析调查，以测量常规包皮环切术（CC）与环形包皮环切术（RC）的伤口愈合率（WHR）和伤口问题（WP）。直到2023年3月进行了全面的文献调查，并回顾了2347项相关调查。16项选定的调查包括25838人，包皮环切术,在选定的调查起点，其中3252个是RC，2586是CC。除95％置信区间（CI）外，通过二分或连续方法以及固定或随机模型，使用比值比（OR）来计算CC与RC相比的WHR和WP值。RC的伤口感染率（WIR）明显降低（OR，0.58；95%CI，0.37-0.91，P=0.002）和伤口出血率（WBR）（OR，0.22；95%CI，0.12-0.42，P<.001）与CC相比。然而,RC和CC在WHR(OR，2.18；95%CI，-0.73至5.09，P=0.14），伤口水肿率（WER）（OR，1.11；95%CI，0.92-1.33，P=.28），和伤口开裂率(WDR)(OR，0.98；95%CI，0.60-1.58，P=.93）。RC的WIR明显较低，WBR,然而,WHR无显著差异，WER,和WDR与CC相比。然而,由于meta分析的一些提名调查的样本量较低，因此在处理其值时必须谨慎。
