An interventional study of Thermocautery and Plastic Clamping in Circumcision, Male, sponsored by Kocatepe University. Completed. Open to male participants aged 1 Week to 18 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2017-05-02.
Sponsored by Kocatepe University · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
Since circumcision is a significant workload for surgeons working at the rural state hospitals in Turkey, the use of circumcision techniques that are easy to implement and have low complications is becoming widespread. In this study, thermocautery, plastic clamping, and conventional (open surgical) circumcision techniques were compared to each other in terms of their short and long term complications.
The study was carried out in accordance with the Helsinki declaration rules, with the approval of the local ethics committee. Male patients who applied to Hakkari State Hospital and Yüksekova State Hospital pediatric surgery clinics between May 2014 and May 2015 for the circumcision operation were analyzed retrospectively by using the hospital registry system. Patients were evaluated in terms of age groups, accompanying pathologies, anesthesia techniques, duration of the surgery, complication rates, and circumcision techniques. Data obtained from the study were transferred to a computer environment and assessed with the help of Statistical Package for Social Sciences Version 19.0. Chi-square test was used to evaluate categorical data and Mann-Whitney U test was used to evaluate quantitative variables. The distribution of the data was tested by using one of the normality tests such as Shapiro-Wilk test in case of the comparison of surgical time. Kruskal Wallis test was used for nonparametric tests in group comparisons when data were not normally distributed. The Dunn test was used as a post-hoc test when different groups were determined. P \<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Circumcision was performed by a pediatric surgeon and an assistant health professional under sterile conditions in the operating room or circumcision room.
Penile block and local infiltration anesthesia (penile ring block, penile dorsal nerve block) were performed to all other patients with Bupivacaine, and Prilocaine. Open surgery, thermocautery, and plastic clamp (Alisklamp) methods were used as circumcision techniques.
In classical surgical circumcision, foreskin was hung up with the clamp. The outer skin and secondly the mucosa was cut by using scissors. Following the hemorrhage intervention, the skin-mucosa integrity was ensured by using the 5/0 absorbable suture. Medical dressing was done.
Alisklamp was used in the plastic clamp technique. The clamp size was chosen according to the diameter of the penis of the patient. The clamp was inserted into the glans and then the skin and the mucosa were pulled to the appropriate size and clamped. The skin and mucosa were excised from the distal part of the clamp with the aid of a lancet. After the operation, the clamp was removed on the 4th day.
In the thermocautery method, a digital thermocautery device with 6 different temperature settings was used. Circumcision was performed in the same way as the surgical circumcision. Only cutting and bleeding intervention was done by using a thermocautery device. Cutting was performed by making the appropriate heat adjustment according to the age of the child and the thickness of the glans. Hemorrhage control was performed with a thermocautery device and then the skin-mucosa integrity was ensured by using a 5/0 absorbable suture.
Routine warm sitting pool and daily medical dressing were recommended after circumcision. Furthermore, it was recommended to patients with phimosis to apply epithelium cicatrising cream. On the 10th postoperative day, all patients were recruited for routine control. Patients with complications were followed up for a long term. Complications were treated.
Kocatepe University is the lead sponsor of 7 studies on the registry; none are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Inclusion Criteria:Circumcised by Thermocautery, Alisklamp and surgical circumcision techniques
-
Exclusion Criteria: Other circumcision Techniques (Tara, Mogen clamp...) excluded
In the thermocautery method, a digital thermocautery device (Thermo-Med TM 802-B, Thermo Medikal, Adana, Turkey) with 6 different temperature settings was used. Circumcision was performed in the same way as the surgical circumcision. Only cutting and bleeding intervention was done by using a thermocautery device. Cutting was performed by making the appropriate heat adjustment according to the age of the child and the thickness of the glans. Hemorrhage control was performed with a thermocautery device and then the skin-mucosa integrity was ensured by using a 5/0 absorbable suture
Device: Thermocautery
Alisklamp (Alisklamp, Abagrup Health Services Ltd, Ankara, Turkey) was used in the plastic clamp technique. The clamp size was chosen according to the diameter of the penis of the patient. The clamp was inserted into the glans and then the skin and the mucosa were pulled to the appropriate size and clamped. The skin and mucosa were excised from the distal part of the clamp with the aid of a lancet. After the operation, the clamp was removed on the 4th day
Device: Plastic Clamping
In classical surgical circumcision, foreskin was hung up with the clamp. The outer skin and secondly the mucosa was cut by using scissors. Following the hemorrhage intervention, the skin-mucosa integrity was sutured by using the 5/0 absorbable suture. Medical dressing was done.
Device: Surgical Circumcision
Also known as: Experimental
Also known as: Active comparator, Alisklamp
Also known as: sham comparator
Complication rate
The diversity in circumcision techniques is because of the search for a more practical, cheaper, safer, and less complicated technique. In this study, complications of circumcisions performed by pediatric surgeon specialists by using three different techniques (thermocautery, alisklamp, and surgical circumcision) in two different hospitals in Turkey were investigated retrospectively.
Time frame: May 2014 and May 2015 (circumcised in 1 year period)
Surgical processing time
Surgical processing time of groups were analyzed retrospectively by using the hospital registry system
Time frame: May 2014 and May 2015 (circumcised in 1 year period)
No study locations are listed for this record.
Plan to share: Yes
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
Ran from May 2014 to primary completion in May 2014, 0 months.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is completed, as verified in Apr 2017. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Kocatepe University