Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2013 Jan;5(1):1-7.
doi: 10.4103/2006-8808.118588.

Techniques of male circumcision

Abdullahi Abdulwahab-Ahmed  1 , Ismaila A Mungadi  1
Affiliations
Review

Techniques of male circumcision

Abdullahi Abdulwahab-Ahmed et al. J Surg Tech Case Rep. 2013 Jan.

Abstract

Male circumcision is a controversial subject in surgical practice. There are, however, clear surgical indications of this procedure. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends newborn male circumcision for its preventive and public health benefits that has been shown to outweigh the risks of newborn male circumcision. Many surgical techniques have been reported. The present review discusses some of these techniques with their merits and drawbacks. This is an attempt to inform the reader on surgical aspects of male circumcision aiding in making appropriate choice of a technique to offer patients. Pubmed search was done with the keywords: Circumcision, technique, complications, and history. Relevant articles on techniques of circumcision were selected for the review. Various methods of circumcision including several devices are in use for male circumcision. These methods can be grouped into three: Shield and clamp, dorsal slit, and excision. The device methods appear favored in the pediatric circumcision while the risk of complications increases with increasing age of the patient at surgery.

Keywords: Complication; device; dorsal slit; excision; male circumcision; public health benefit; technique.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Mogen clamp
Figure 2
Figure 2
Plastibell
Figure 3
Figure 3
Dorsal slit
Figure 4
Figure 4
Gomco
Figure 5
Figure 5
Zhenxi ring
Figure 6
Figure 6
Tara klamp
Figure 7
Figure 7
Smartklamp
Figure 8
Figure 8
Shang ring
Figure 9
Figure 9
The PrePex® device
Figure 10
Figure 10
Bone cutter for use in guillotine method
Figure 11
Figure 11
Full preputial retraction
Figure 12
Figure 12
Crushing the prepuce with artery clamp before incision
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Blank S, Brady M, Buerk E, Carlo W, Diekema D, Freedman A, et al. American Academy of Pediatrics, Task force on Circumcision: Male circumcision. Pediatrics. 2012;130:e756–85. - PubMed
    1. Morris BJ, Eley C. Male circumcision: An appraisal of current instrumentation. Chapter 14. In: Fazel-Rezai R, editor. Biomedical Engineering: From Theory to Applications. Rijeka, Croatia: InTech; 2011. pp. 315–54.
    1. Wiswell TE, Geschke DW. Risks from circumcision during the first month of life compared with those for uncircumcised boys. Pediatrics. 1989;83:1011–5. - PubMed
    1. Wiswell TE, Hachey WE. Urinary tract infections and the circumcision state: An update. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 1993;32:130–4. - PubMed
    1. Wiswell TE. Neonatal circumcision: A current appraisal. Focus Opin Pediatr. 1995;1:93–9.