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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2019 Aug 14;14(8):e0218066.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218066. eCollection 2019.

Use of topical versus injectable anaesthesia for ShangRing circumcisions in men and boys in Kenya: Results from a randomized controlled trial

Quentin Awori  1 , Philip S Li  2 , Richard K Lee  2 , Daniel Ouma  1 , Millicent Oundo  1 , Mukhaye Barasa  3 , Nereah Obura  1 , David Mwamkita  1 , Raymond Simba  4 , Jairus Oketch  4 , Nixon Nyangweso  4 , Mary Maina  5 , Nicholas Kiswi  5 , Michael Kirui  3 , Betty Chirchir  3 , Marc Goldstein  2 , Mark A Barone  6
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Use of topical versus injectable anaesthesia for ShangRing circumcisions in men and boys in Kenya: Results from a randomized controlled trial

Quentin Awori et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: The ShangRing is a disposable, collar clamp circumcision device pre-qualified for use in men and boys 13 years and above. It has been shown to be faster than conventional circumcision with comparable adverse event (AE) rates and high client satisfaction. Voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) has been shown to dramatically reduce the risk of HIV acquisition in males. However, the fear of pain during circumcision is an important barrier to uptake. Use of topical anesthesia thus presents an opportunity to address this.

Objectives: We sought to evaluate the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of the use of topical anaesthesia with ShangRing circumcision of men and boys 10 years of age and above.

Methods: Participants were randomised 2:1 to receive topical or injectable anaesthesia. All participants underwent no-flip ShangRing circumcision. The primary outcome measure was pain. Secondary outcomes included ease of use of topical versus injectable anaesthesia, AEs and participant satisfaction.

Results: Compared to the topical group, participants in the injectable group reported significantly more pain on administration of the anesthesia and at approximately 20 minutes after the procedure. In the topical group, sufficient anaesthesia with topical cream was not achieved in 21 (9.3%) cases before the start of the procedure; in another 6 (2.6%), supplementary injectable anaesthesia was required as the circumcision was being carried out. The AE rate was significantly lower (p<0.01) in the topical (0%) vs. the injectable group (4.2%). The most common AE was pain during the post-operative period. All AEs were managed conservatively and resolved without sequeale. 96.7% of participants were satisfied with the appearance of the healed penis and 100% would recommend the ShangRing to others. All seven male circumcision providers involved in the study preferred topical to injectable anaesthesia.

Conclusions: Our results demonstrate the safety, improved clinical experience, effectiveness, and acceptability of the use of topical anaesthesia in ShangRing circumcision using the no-flip technique. Topical anaesthesia effectively eliminates needlestick pain from the clients' VMMC experience and thus has the potential to increase demand for the service.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02390310.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. MB, MK, BC, and PM work for Bon Santé Consulting, which was contracted to provide data management and statistical support for the study. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors MAB, PSL, RKL, DO, MO, NO, DM, and QDA via the grant that supported this work. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Flow of study participants.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Auvert B, Taljaard D, Lagarde E, Sobngwi-Tambekou J, Sitta R, Puren A. Randomized, Controlled Intervention Trial of Male Circumcision for Reduction of HIV Infection Risk: The ANRS 1265 Trial. PLoS Med [Internet]. 2005. October 25;2(11):e298 Available from: http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020298 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, Agot K, Maclean I, Krieger JN, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet [Internet]. 2007. February 24;369(9562):643–56. Available from: http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673607603122 - PubMed
    1. Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, Makumbi F, Watya S, Nalugoda F, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2007;369(9562):657–66. 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60313-4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Williams B, Lloyd-Smith JO, Gouws E, Hankins C, Getz WM, Hargrove J, et al. The potential impact of male circumcision on HIV in sub-Saharan Africa. PLoS Med. 2006;3:1032–40. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mehta SD, Moses S, Agot K, Odoyo-June E, Li H, Maclean I, et al. The long-term efficacy of medical male circumcision against HIV acquisition. AIDS [Internet]. 2013. November 28;27(18):2899–2709. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23835501 - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data