Volume 83, Issue 4 (July 2025)
Tehran Univ Med J 2025, 83(4): 237-242 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Saeidi R, Gholami M. Comparison of the benefits and complications of the classic surgical method and the plastic ring method in neonatal circumcision: a systematic review. Tehran Univ Med J 2025; 83 (4) :237-242
URL: http://tumj.tums.ac.ir/article-1-13566-en.html
URL: http://tumj.tums.ac.ir/article-1-13566-en.html
1- Department of Neonatal, Neonatal Health Research Center, Research Institute for Children Health, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2- Noncommunicable Diseases Research Center, Neyshabur University of Medical Sciences, Neyshabur, Iran.
2- Noncommunicable Diseases Research Center, Neyshabur University of Medical Sciences, Neyshabur, Iran.
Abstract: (577 Views)
Background: Neonatal circumcision is one of the most common surgical procedures worldwide, performed for cultural, religious, and health-related reasons. The two primary methods for neonatal circumcision are the classic surgical method (using sutures or clamps such as Gomco or Mogen) and the plastic ring method (e.g., Plastibell). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the benefits and complications of these two methods in neonates.
Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases for articles published between 2000 and 2024. Inclusion and exclusion criteria: Included studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies that compared the benefits and harms of classical surgery and plastic ring in infants (<28 days). Studies without a comparison group, studies conducted in older children or adults, and articles that did not provide sufficient data were excluded. Keywords included "neonatal circumcision", "plastic ring", "Plastibell", "classical surgery", "Gomco clamp", "Mogen clamp", "benefits", "complications" and their English equivalents.
Studies comparing the benefits and complications of the classic surgical method and the plastic ring method in neonates were included. Data were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model, and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.
Results: From a total of 12 included studies (involving 5,342 neonates), the plastic ring method was associated with a significant reduction in bleeding (RR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.32-0.64) and healing time (mean difference: -2.3 days; 95% CI: -3.1 to -1.5) compared to the classic surgical method. However, the risk of skin adhesion was higher with the plastic ring method (RR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.05-1.66). Serious complications, such as urethral injury, were rare in both methods (less than 0.2%).
Conclusion: The plastic ring method is a suitable option for neonatal circumcision due to its ease of use, reduced bleeding, and faster healing time. However, careful post-procedural care is essential to minimize the risk of skin adhesion. The choice of method should consider the operator’s expertise and parental preferences.
Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases for articles published between 2000 and 2024. Inclusion and exclusion criteria: Included studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and cross-sectional studies that compared the benefits and harms of classical surgery and plastic ring in infants (<28 days). Studies without a comparison group, studies conducted in older children or adults, and articles that did not provide sufficient data were excluded. Keywords included "neonatal circumcision", "plastic ring", "Plastibell", "classical surgery", "Gomco clamp", "Mogen clamp", "benefits", "complications" and their English equivalents.
Studies comparing the benefits and complications of the classic surgical method and the plastic ring method in neonates were included. Data were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model, and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated.
Results: From a total of 12 included studies (involving 5,342 neonates), the plastic ring method was associated with a significant reduction in bleeding (RR: 0.45; 95% CI: 0.32-0.64) and healing time (mean difference: -2.3 days; 95% CI: -3.1 to -1.5) compared to the classic surgical method. However, the risk of skin adhesion was higher with the plastic ring method (RR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.05-1.66). Serious complications, such as urethral injury, were rare in both methods (less than 0.2%).
Conclusion: The plastic ring method is a suitable option for neonatal circumcision due to its ease of use, reduced bleeding, and faster healing time. However, careful post-procedural care is essential to minimize the risk of skin adhesion. The choice of method should consider the operator’s expertise and parental preferences.
Type of Study: Review Article |
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
