Abstract：
BACKGROUND: While device-based circumcision is considered non-inferior to traditional dissection, there is no consensus on the efficacy and safety of ring devices in comparison with clamp devices. We aimed to compare the safety outcomes of ring-based versus clamp-based circumcision techniques in neonates.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and CINAHL were searched following the Cochrane collaboration (PRISMA guidelines), without language restrictions, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. Adverse events, bleeding events, infection events, and procedure time were extracted and analyzed from the selected studies.
RESULTS: From 1661 citations, seven trials were included, encompassing 3390 patients. These studies compared ring-based to clamp-based circumcision devices in neonates. No significant difference was found in overall adverse events between the two groups. However, ring devices showed significantly fewer bleeding events compared to clamp devices. Infection events and procedure time were similar for both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Both ring and clamp devices have similar safety profiles, with ring devices potentially offering a reduced risk of bleeding. A comprehensive understanding of ring-specific complications and cosmetic outcomes is necessary for a more complete evaluation of these circumcision techniques. Our analysis is limited from a lack of detailed examination of ring-specific complications and their impact on cosmetic results. The included studies varied in quality, and some exhibited a risk of bias.
METHODS: Level IV Treatment Study.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and CINAHL were searched following the Cochrane collaboration (PRISMA guidelines), without language restrictions, to identify relevant randomized controlled trials. Adverse events, bleeding events, infection events, and procedure time were extracted and analyzed from the selected studies.
RESULTS: From 1661 citations, seven trials were included, encompassing 3390 patients. These studies compared ring-based to clamp-based circumcision devices in neonates. No significant difference was found in overall adverse events between the two groups. However, ring devices showed significantly fewer bleeding events compared to clamp devices. Infection events and procedure time were similar for both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Both ring and clamp devices have similar safety profiles, with ring devices potentially offering a reduced risk of bleeding. A comprehensive understanding of ring-specific complications and cosmetic outcomes is necessary for a more complete evaluation of these circumcision techniques. Our analysis is limited from a lack of detailed examination of ring-specific complications and their impact on cosmetic results. The included studies varied in quality, and some exhibited a risk of bias.
METHODS: Level IV Treatment Study.
摘要：
背景：虽然基于设备的包皮环切术被认为不劣于传统的解剖，与夹钳装置相比，环形装置的功效和安全性没有共识。我们旨在比较新生儿环型包皮环切术和钳型包皮环切术的安全性结果。
方法：MEDLINE，EMBASE,Scopus,根据Cochrane合作(PRISMA指南)搜索和CINAHL，没有语言限制，确定相关的随机对照试验。不良事件,出血事件,感染事件,从选定的研究中提取和分析手术时间。
结果：从1661次引用中，包括七项试验，包括3390名患者。这些研究比较了新生儿中基于环的包皮环切术和基于夹钳的包皮环切术。两组之间的总体不良事件没有显着差异。然而,与卡箍器械相比,环形器械出血事件明显较少.两组的感染事件和手术时间相似。
结论：环形和夹紧装置的安全性相似，环形装置可能降低出血风险。全面了解环特异性并发症和美容结果对于更完整地评估这些包皮环切技术是必要的。我们的分析是有限的缺乏详细检查环特异性并发症及其对美容结果的影响。纳入的研究质量各不相同，有些人表现出偏见的风险。
方法：IV级治疗研究。
方法：MEDLINE，EMBASE,Scopus,根据Cochrane合作(PRISMA指南)搜索和CINAHL，没有语言限制，确定相关的随机对照试验。不良事件,出血事件,感染事件,从选定的研究中提取和分析手术时间。
结果：从1661次引用中，包括七项试验，包括3390名患者。这些研究比较了新生儿中基于环的包皮环切术和基于夹钳的包皮环切术。两组之间的总体不良事件没有显着差异。然而,与卡箍器械相比,环形器械出血事件明显较少.两组的感染事件和手术时间相似。
结论：环形和夹紧装置的安全性相似，环形装置可能降低出血风险。全面了解环特异性并发症和美容结果对于更完整地评估这些包皮环切技术是必要的。我们的分析是有限的缺乏详细检查环特异性并发症及其对美容结果的影响。纳入的研究质量各不相同，有些人表现出偏见的风险。
方法：IV级治疗研究。
