Comparative Study of Patient Satisfaction Between Traditional and Modified Plastibell Method for Circumcision in a Tertiary Care Centre

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##

Ashish Namdeo Gavade
Mandar Vaidya

Abstract

Introduction: Phimosis is Inability to retract prepuce. At birth the foreskin is normally adherent to the glans penis. Incidence of pathological phimosis is 0.6%. Circumcision is a very old procedure. Any technique for surgery can be applied but rate of morbidity should be low. Materials and Methods: Study conducted in Department of surgery of a tertiary care hospital. Data collection of selected patients with relevant history, clinical examination, appropriate investigation and surgical intervention were included. Results: Study was conducted with 116 subjects with mean age of 3.1 years with surgery done by the dorsal slit method and mean age of 3.7 years by plastibell method. The average duration for dorsal slit procedure to complete is 15.7 minutes and for plastibell is 12.2 minutes. Mean blood loss occurred in dorsal slit method is 9.0 while that in plastibell is 6.0. Frequency of surgical site infection in dorsal slit method is 5.2% while that in plastibell method is 6.9%. Post-operative heamorrhage seen in dorsal slit method is 5.2% while that in plastibell is 1.7%. 89.7% of parents satisfied with dorsal slit method while 96.6% parents were satisfied with modified plastibell method. Conclusion: Study showed that plastibell has advantage of shorter time for surgery and relatively lower risk of post-operative bleeding when compared with dorsal slit method of circumcision. The cosmetic outcome as judged by parental satisfaction was also better with plastibell technique.

##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##

How to Cite
Gavade, A. N., & Vaidya, M. (2020). Comparative Study of Patient Satisfaction Between Traditional and Modified Plastibell Method for Circumcision in a Tertiary Care Centre. MVP Journal of Medical Sciences, 170–174. https://doi.org/10.18311/mvpjms/2020/v7i2/24658

References

  1. Shahid SK. Phimosis in children. International Scholarly Research Notices. 2012; 2012. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/707329
  2. Williams NS, Bulstrode CJK, O’Connell PR. Bailey & Love’s short practice of surgery. 26th edition. Boca raton: CRC Press: 2013. pp 1369
  3. DeMeo J. The truth seeker. The geography of genital mutilations. July/August 1989. pp 9–13.
  4. R.-A. Yegane, A.-R. Kheirollahi, N.-A. Salehi, M. Bashashati, J.-A. Khoshdel, and M. Ahmadi, “Late complications of circumcision in Iran.” Pediatric Surgery International. 2006; 22(5): 442–445. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-006-1672-1
  5. P. K. Drain, D. T. Halperin, J. P. Hughes, J. D. Klausner, and R. C. Bailey, “Male circumcision, religion, and infectious diseases: an ecologic analysis of 118 developing countries,” BMC Infectious Diseases. 2006; 6(172): 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2334-6-172
  6. Abdulwahab-Ahmed A, Mungadi IA. Techniques of male circumcision. Journal of surgical technique and case report. 2013; 5(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/2006-8808.118588
  7. American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Male circumcision. Pediatrics. Sep 2012; 130(3): e756. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-1990
  8. Algadiem EA, Aleisa AA, Alsubaie HI, Buhlaiqah NR, Algadeeb JB, Alsneini HA. Blood loss estimation using gauze visual analogue. Trauma monthly. May 2016; 21(2). https://doi.org/10.5812/traumamon.34131
  9. Leibowitz AA, Desmond K, Belin T. Determinants and policy implications of male circumcision in the US. Am J Pub Health 2009; 99: 138–45. https://doi.org/10.2105/ AJPH.2008.134403
  10. Hutcheson JC. Male neonatal circumcision: Indications, controversies and complications. Urol Clin North Am 2004; 31: 461–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2004.04.011
  11. Barrie H, Huntingford PJ, Gough MH. The plastibell technique for circumcision. BMJ. 1965; 2(5456): 273–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.2.5456.273
  12. Khan AA, Rehan S, Shamim B, Shahzadi M, Ali MZ, Alvi S. Comparison of circumcision by plastibell versus open method. Pak Armed Forces Med J 2016; 66(4): 534–37.
  13. Abdullah LB, Mohammad AM, Anyanwu LC, Farinyaro AU. Outcome of male circumcision: A comparison between plastibell and dorsal slit methods. Nigerian Journal of Basic and Clinical Sciences. 2018 Jan 1; 15(1): 5. https://doi.org/10.4103/njbcs.njbcs_38_16
  14. Shinde ND, Moinuddin M, Danish AO. Plastibell circumcision in neonates and infants at tertiary care centre. Int J Surg. 23Mar 2018; 5(4): 1488–91. https://doi.org/10.18203/2349-2902.isj20181135
  15. Mousavi SA, Salehifar E. Circumcision complications associated with the Plastibell device and conventional dissection surgery: a trial of 586 infants of ages up to 12 months. Advances in Urology. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/606123