{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Evaluating Safety of Ring Versus Clamp Devices in Neonatal Circumcision: A Meta-Analysis.
{Author}: Ahmad I;Tang J;Khondker A;Malik A;Chua M;Rickard M;Lorenzo AJ;Dos Santos J;
{Journal}: J Pediatr Surg
{Volume}: 0
{Issue}: 0
{Year}: 2024 Jun 22
{Factor}: 2.549
{DOI}: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2024.06.015
{Abstract}: <B>BACKGROUND: </B>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.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>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.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>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.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>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.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>Level IV Treatment Study.