Effect of two surgical circumcision procedures on postoperative pain: A prospective, randomized, double-blind study

Meatal stenosis following three types of circumcision with frenular artery preservation (FAP), the Plastibell device (PD), and frenular artery ligation (FAL): a long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

Despite the simplicity of male circumcision, complications occur frequently. Post-circumcision meatal stenosis is a concerning complication that might require several interventions.

AIM

This study aims to evaluate the incidence of meatal stenosis in long-term follow-up, following three common circumcision methods: frenular artery preservation, frenular ligation, and the Plastibell device.

METHODS

This study is the continuation of the previous randomized clinical trial, the preliminary abstract of which has been accepted in the annual meeting of the American Urological Association in 2011. However, in this paper, we only included the patients with results of long-term follow-up. Patients were followed for a median of 11 years (range, 7-17). Follow-ups were recorded by evaluation of meatus and signs and symptoms of meatal stenosis.

RESULTS

Two hundred six boys (80 neonates and 126 non-neonates) at the time of procedure were included in this study. The circumcision was conducted on 23.3% (48/206) of boys with the Plastibell device (PD) and 39.3% (81/206) of cases with frenular artery preservation (FAP) and 37.4% (77/206) of cases with frenular artery ligation (FAL). Meatal stenosis presented in 13 children during follow-up. Considering the three methods of circumcision, a significant difference in the incidence of meatal stenosis among the types of circumcisions was observed (6.3% in PD and 1.2% in FAP, 11.7% in FAL, P = 0.026).

CONCLUSION

The present study revealed that the technique preserving the frenular artery is associated with a significantly lower incidence of meatal stenosis. Hence, the FAP is the recommended technique for circumcision as compared to two other methods.

Validation of the Ramsay scale for invasive procedures under deep sedation in pediatrics

BACKGROUND

The Ramsay scale is the most widely used scale during pediatric procedures although it has not been formally validated.

OBJECTIVE

To validate the Ramsay scale during invasive procedures under sedation in pediatrics.

METHODS

A prospective analytic study was conducted in two hospitals. All patients ≥6 months that were undergoing invasive procedures under sedation were enrolled. All were recorded, and these videos were edited and randomized. 150 videos were scored by four observers (a pediatrician, a pediatric intensive care unit nurse, an anesthetist, and an operating room nurse). All videos were scored with the Ramsay scale and University of Michigan Sedation Scale. Observers were blinded to drug administration. Construct validity was measured through Wilcoxon test paired samples after administration of sedatives. Criterion validity, intra-observer reliability, and interobserver correlation were evaluated by comparing the scores of the scales using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Interobserver agreement was measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient. To assess test-retest reliability, 50 videos were randomly selected and reevaluated.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were included. Construct validity was demonstrated through changes in the Ramsay scale scoring after administration of sedatives (p < .0001). Regarding criterion validity, the Ramsay scale had a high correlation with the UMSS (ρ = 0.621). Intra-observer agreement was ρ = 0.884. The Ramsay scale showed interobserver reliability with an intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.94 when comparing it with the University of Michigan Sedation Scale. Internal consistency was α = 0.91. Regarding applicability, in our study, it was applied in two hospitals in different areas by four professionals from distinct categories.

CONCLUSIONS

The Ramsay scale is valid, reliable, and applicable to monitoring sedation for invasive procedures under deep sedation in pediatrics.