Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative analysis on the outcomes in circumcising children using modified Chinese ShangRing and conventional surgical circumcision

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

Abstract

Objective

To compare the differences and outcomes of surgical procedures, clinical effect, complications and patients’ satisfaction between disposable oval-shaped circumcision device (Modified Chinese ShangRing series, Kiddie love®) and conventional circumcision in the treatment of children with phimosis or redundant prepuce.

Methods

The clinical data were retrospectively analyzed in 114 children with phimosis or redundant foreskin undergone circumcision using a disposable oval-shaped circumcision device, a modified Chinese ShangRing series, Kiddie Love® (Kiddie Love group) in our hospital between January 2018 and February 2020, and another 114 children with similar conditions circumcised by conventional surgical procedure before January 2018 (conventional group). The two groups were compared regarding the operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pain scores, healing time, the incidence of complications and guardian’s satisfaction.

Results

Circumcision was successfully completed in children in both groups. The operative time, intraoperative blood loss, postoperative pain scoring in 24 h by VAS, pain at the removal of the device or stitches and wound healing were (6.4 ± 1.6) min, (34.1 ± 6.4) min; (0.7 ± 0.2) ml, (2.6 ± 0.6) ml; (2.2 ± 1.0) points, (1.3 ± 0.5) points; (23.7 ± 3.9)day, (15.9 ± 2.8)day, respectively for Kiddie Love group and conventional group(either P < 0.05 or P > 0.05). The two groups were significantly different in the incidence of hematoma, edema and incision dehiscenceyet were insignificant in incision infection. Children in both groups were followed up from 6 to 31 months (mean: 23 months), and the satisfaction rate was 94.7% (108/114) in parents of the children circumcised by the ShangRing and 83.3% (95/114) in those of children treated by conventional circumcision (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Modified Chinese ShangRing, Kiddie Love®, has superiorities, including simpler procedure, shorter operative time, less blood loss, fewer complications, better cosmetic results and higher satisfaction of patients over conventional circumcision in the treatment of children with phimosis or redundant foreskin, and worthy of wider clinical recommendation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dongjun L, Kangning Q, Huiqing K (2018) Comparison between disposable circumcision anastomosis device and traditional surgery [J]. Chin Health Care Nutr (Article in Chinese) 28(6):50

    Google Scholar 

  2. Morris BJ, Wiswell TE (2013) Circumcision and lifetime risk of urinary tract infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. J Urol 189(6):2118–2124

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB et al (2007) Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men inkisumu, Kenya: a randomized controlled trial Lancet [J]. Natl J Androl 228(9):643–656

    Google Scholar 

  4. Morris BJ, Wamai RG (2012) Biological basis for the protective effect conferred by male circumcision against HIV infection. Int J STD AIDS 23:153

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wei H, Shengli M, Zhanlin Y, Ling M, Hanyan L, Liquan H (2013) Detection of herpes simplex virus type 2 and human papillomavirus in foreskin [J]. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese) 9(1):70–71

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kun-long B, Jian-chun X, Lin L, Nian-qing L, Yue C, Jian T et al (2009) Male circumcision is an effective “surgical vaccine” for HIV prevention and reproductive health. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese) 15(5):395–402

    Google Scholar 

  7. Lu N, Li PS, Huang Y-R (2008) An innovative male circumcision technique in china and HIV prevention [J]. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese). 14(3):195–199

    Google Scholar 

  8. Farley T (2009) Evidence on male circumcision and prevention of HIV and other STIs. The Proceedings of the Third Asia-Pacific Forum on Andrology. 10–13 October 2009, Nanjing, China. Asian J Androl.11( 5): S1: 34–35

  9. Schoen EJ, Oehrli M, Collby CD, Machin G (2000) The highly protective effect of newborn circumcision against invasive penile cancer. Pediatrics 105(3):E36

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Nian-qing L, Li PS, Sokal D, Yue C, Yi-feng P, Barone M et al (2011) Progress in the clinical studies of male circumcision using the Shang Ring. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese) 17(3):195–202

    Google Scholar 

  11. Taiyang L, Xiuhua W, Hui Z, Yong Z, Zihao H, Zhigang F et al (2014) Chinese ShangRing circumcision for phimosis or redundant prepuce: a meta-analysis. The Chinese Journal of Human Sexuality (Article in Chinese) 23(11):11–15

    Google Scholar 

  12. Min MA, Haixiao WU (2017) A comparative analysis of the new type of circumcision and traditional circumcision in the treatment of redundant foreskin (article in Chinese). Chin J Hum Sex 26(7):30–32

    Google Scholar 

  13. Feldblum PJ, Okech J, Ochieng R et al (2015) Longer-term follow-up of kenyan men circumcised using the ShangRing device [J]. PLoS ONE 10(9):e0137510

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Odoyo-June E, Owuor N, Kassim S et al (2019) Rollout of ShangRing circumcision with active surveillance for adverse events and monitoring for uptake in Kenya [J]. PLoS ONE 14(9):e0222942

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Masson P, Li PS, Barone MA et al (2010) The ShangRing device for simplified adult circumcision [J]. Nat Rev Urol 7(11):638

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Aiping L, Kerong W, Yue C, Guoyao W (2018) Comparison of Chinese ShangRing and circumcision stapler in children’s circumcision [J]. Chin J Androl (Article in Chinese) 32(5):60–62

    Google Scholar 

  17. Awori QD, Lee RK, Li PS, Moguche JN, Ouma D, Sambai B et al (2017) Use of the ShangRing circumcision device in boys below 18 years old in Kenya: results from a pilot study[J]. J Int AIDS Soc 20(1):1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Long W, Jin-rui Y (2007) Appropriate attitude about neonatal male circumcision. Med Philos (Clin Decision Making Forum Ed) (Article in Chinese). 28(1):28–29

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ran M, Wenxue S, Chenchen Z, Xinguo J, Liang L, Yu-ying C, Bo Z (2015) Comparative study of the application of disposable circumcision suture device, conventional circumcision and circumcision anastomosis (article in Chinese). Chin J Hum Sex 24(6):24–26

    Google Scholar 

  20. Li Huining Xu, Liming JQ (2010) Comparison of the curative effect between Chinese ShangRing and traditional surgery in male circumcision[J]. Natl J Androl 16(4):325–327

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Xinhua L, Shaobin Z (2011) Experience in treating redundant foreskin and phimosis in children using Chinese ShangRing [J]. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese) 17(6):542–545

    Google Scholar 

  22. Huang C, Song P, Xu C et al (2017) Comparative efficacy and safety of different circumcisions for patients with redundant prepuce or phimosis: a network meta-analysis[J]. Int J Surg 43:17–25

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yong S, Junsheng X, Zhengjian L, Yong Z, Minyang W (2018) Clinical effect analysis of Shang Ring, conventional circumcision, and disposable circumcision suture device in the treatment ofredundant prepuce and phimosis [J]. Chin J Androl (Article in Chinese) 32(05):55–59

    Google Scholar 

  24. Changyin Z, Jinghui C, Zhongjie T et al (2018) Efficiency and safety of circumcision suture device, ShangRing and traditional circumcision in the treatmentof prepuce or phimosis [J]. Chin J Hum Sex (Article in Chinese) 27(04):5–9

    Google Scholar 

  25. January (2013) WHO technical advisory group on innovations in male circumcision: evaluation of two adult devices [J]. World Health Organization

  26. Furan W (2013) Observation on the curative effect of circumcision in children (report of 211 cases) [J]. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese) 03:278–281

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hai Y, Bing Y, Kun Z et al (2011) Comparison of the effects of two different methods of circumcision [J]. Chin Commun Dr Med Field (Article in Chinese) 13(14):113

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fuxing X, Fucai W, Zanbing X (2018) Comparative study on the clinical efficacy of ShangRing circumcision device and disposable circumcision stapler [J]. Chin Med Pharm (Article in Chinese) 008(001):223–226

    Google Scholar 

  29. Weihong W, Botao J, Wei Z (2013) Comparison of the application of the ShangRing and traditional circumcision to the treatment of children with redundant prepuce and phimosis [J]. Natl Med Front China (Article in Chinese) 008(008):54–54

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hezhen C, Yimin X, Weimin Z et al (2019) Outcomes of a round type of disposable circumcision device in preschool children [J]. Clin Med Res Pract (Article in Chinese) 004(017):93–94

    Google Scholar 

  31. Cao D, Liu L, Hu Y et al (2015) A systematic review and meta-analysis of circumcision with shangring vs conventional circumcision [J]. Urology 85(4):799–804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Yue C, Zejun Y, Xinjun S, Haiwei F, Jiasheng H, Kerong W, Rui S, Jianwei M (2011) A Clinical comparative study of Chinese Shang Ring circumcision versus conventional circumcision [J]. Chin J Urol (Article in Chinese) 05:333–335

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ben-hai Y, Chao J, Tao L, Yi-feng P (2014) Novel no-flip ShangRing circumcision for adult males: a clinical application study of 528 cases [J]. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese) 20(8):709–714

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wei Q, Liang L, Feng L (2016) Operation standardization and complication control of “Shang ring” circumcision in the treatment of phimosis in children (report of 306 cases) [J]. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese) 22(004):369–372

    Google Scholar 

  35. Shouju C, Tong T, Guanjun L (2014) Clinical application of improved ShangRing device for circumcision of children [J]. Chin J Postgrad Med (Article in Chinese) 37(2):70–71

    Google Scholar 

  36. Yitian G, Bin X, Ming C et al (2017) Chinese parents’ attitudes toward and theirsatisfaction with circumcision for 6–14 years old children [J]. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese) 04(v.23):32–35

    Google Scholar 

  37. Bai Bing (2019) Comparison between disposable circumcision stapler and ShangRing in the treatment of redundant prepuce and phimosis [J]. Clinical Medicine (Article in Chinese). (6)

  38. Wei Q, Ting L, Xining J (2019) Comparison of therapeutic effects of two circumcision instruments on phimosis in children [J]. J Clin Urol (Article in Chinese) 34(8):647–650

    Google Scholar 

  39. Cheng Y, Wu K, Yan Z et al (2012) How to choose appropriate ring size for Shang Ring male circumcision [J]. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 61(5):606–609

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Feng D, Zhu X, Li Y et al (2019) Application of disposable oval circumcision anastomat in pediatric urology. Natl Med J China 02:124–128

    Google Scholar 

  41. Yan B, You H, Zhang K, Tang H, Mao W, He G et al (2010) Circumcision with the Chinese ShangRing in children: outcomes of 824 cases. Natl J Androl (Article in Chinese) 16(3):250–253

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China, 12026239, Humanities and Social Sciences of Ministry of Education Planning Fund, 22YJA910004.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Dalian Women and Children’s Medical Group, Dalian, 116012, Liaoning, China

    Qingde Zhang, Lijuan Gao, Dianyong Liu, Guiyun Song, Peng Gao, Shuai Zhang, Jing Zhang, Yakun Xu & Dongdong Han

  2. School of Mathematics, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, 266100, Shan Dong, China

    Yan Xu

Authors
  1. Qingde Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lijuan Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dianyong Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Guiyun Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peng Gao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shuai Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jing Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yakun Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Dongdong Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Yan Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Qingde Zhang and Liu Gao considered and designed the analysis; Dianyong Liu and Guiyun Song collected the data; Shu Zhang and Jing Zhang Contributed data or analysis tools; Yan Xu, Yakun Xu and Dong Dong Han Performed the analysis; Qingde Zhang, and Peng Gao and Yan Xu Wrote the paper.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Qingde Zhang or Yan Xu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Ethical approval

The use of the descriptive data of the CHRIS study was approved by the medical Ethics Committee of Hope Square Children’s Hospital, Dalian Municipal Women and Children's Medical Center (Group).

Consent to participate

Participation was voluntary and participants provided written informed consent to participate in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Q., Gao, L., Liu, D. et al. Comparative analysis on the outcomes in circumcising children using modified Chinese ShangRing and conventional surgical circumcision. Pediatr Surg Int 39, 59 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-022-05343-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-022-05343-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation