Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Paediatric sutureless circumcision—an alternative to the standard technique

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Surgery International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Circumcision is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures in male children. A range of surgical techniques exist for this commonly performed procedure. The aim of this study is to assess the safety, functional outcome and cosmetic appearance of a sutureless circumcision technique.

Methods

Over a 9-year period, 502 consecutive primary sutureless circumcisions were performed by a single surgeon. All 502 cases were entered prospectively into a database including all relevant clinical details and a review was performed. The technique used to perform the sutureless circumcision is a modification of the standard sleeve technique with the use of a bipolar diathermy and the application of 2-octyl cyanoacrylate (2-OCA) to approximate the tissue edges.

Results

All boys in this study were pre-pubescent and the ages ranged from 6 months to 12 years (mean age 3.5 years). All patients had this procedure performed as a day case and under general anaesthetic. Complications included: haemorrhage (2.2%), haematoma (1.4%), wound infection (4%), allergic reaction (0.2%) and wound dehiscence (0.8%). Only 9 (1.8%) parents or patients were dissatisfied with the cosmetic appearance.

Conclusion

The use of 2-OCA as a tissue adhesive for sutureless circumcisions is an alternative to the standard suture technique. The use of this tissue adhesive, 2-OCA, results in comparable complication rates to the standard circumcision technique and results in excellent post-operative cosmetic satisfaction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Williams N, Kapila L (1993) Complications of circumcision. Br J Surg 80(10):1231–1236

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. O’Sullivan DC, Heal MR, Powell CS (1996) Circumcision: how do urologists do it? Br J Urol 78(2):265–270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Zafar F et al (1993) Sutureless circumcision. Br J Surg 80(7):859

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Elmasalme FN, Matbouli SA, Zuberi MS (1995) Use of tissue adhesive in the closure of small incisions and lacerations. J Pediatr Surg 30(6):837–838

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Toriumi DM, Bagal AA (2002) Cyanoacrylate tissue adhesives for skin closure in the outpatient setting. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 35(1):103–118 (vi–vii)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheng W, Saing H (1997) A prospective randomized study of wound approximation with tissue glue in circumcision in children. J Paediatr Child Health 33(6):515–516

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Toriumi DM et al (1998) Use of octyl-2-cyanoacrylate for skin closure in facial plastic surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg 102(6):2209–2219

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Maw JL et al (1997) A prospective comparison of octylcyanoacrylate tissue adhesive and suture for the closure of head and neck incisions. J Otolaryngol 26(1):26–30

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bruns TB, Worthington JM (2000) Using tissue adhesive for wound repair: a practical guide to dermabond. Am Fam Physician 61(5):1383–1388

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Quinn JV et al (1995) N-2-butylcyanoacrylate: risk of bacterial contamination with an appraisal of its antimicrobial effects. J Emerg Med 13(4):581–585

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Griffiths DM, Atwell JD, Freeman NV (1985) A prospective survey of the indications and morbidity of circumcision in children. Eur Urol 11(3):184–187

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Arunachalam P, King PA, Orford J (2003) A prospective comparison of tissue glue versus sutures for circumcision. Pediatr Surg Int 19(1–2):18–19

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. El-Dars LD et al (2010) Allergic contact dermatitis to Dermabond after orthopaedic joint replacement. Contact Dermat 62(5):315–317

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. D’Arcy FT, Jaffry SQ (2011) A review of 100 consecutive sutureless child and adult circumcisions. Ir J Med Sci 180(1):51–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fraser ID, Goede AC (2002) Sutureless circumcision. BJU Int 90(4):467–468

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Subramaniam R, Jacobsen AS (2004) Sutureless circumcision: a prospective randomised controlled study. Pediatr Surg Int 20(10):783–785

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Elmore JM, Smith EA, Kirsch AJ (2007) Sutureless circumcision using 2-octyl cyanoacrylate (Dermabond): appraisal after 18-month experience. Urology 70(4):803–806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kaye JD et al (2010) Sutureless and scalpel-free circumcision–more rapid, less expensive and better? J Urol 184(4 Suppl):1758–1762

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian D. Kelly.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kelly, B.D., Lundon, D.J., Timlin, M.E. et al. Paediatric sutureless circumcision—an alternative to the standard technique. Pediatr Surg Int 28, 305–308 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-011-3015-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-011-3015-0

Keywords

Navigation