Front Surg. 2026 Jun 25;13:1871497. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2026.1871497. eCollection 2026.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Routine circumcision using penile circumcision and suturing devices (PCSD) is widely performed in outpatient settings. However, the conventional technique usually requires two operators, which increases manpower demand and limits procedural efficiency in high-volume clinical practice.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility and short-term perioperative outcomes of a single-operator circumcision technique using a penile circumcision and suturing device, compared with the traditional dual-operator method.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective pilot observational study consecutively enrolled patients undergoing circumcision at a single center. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 (dual-operator circumcision, n = 82) and Group 2 (single-operator circumcision, n = 113). All patients received the same anesthesia protocol consisting of 2% lidocaine for dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB). Operative time, intraoperative blood loss, and adverse surgical events were compared between the two groups.
RESULTS: The mean operative time was 6.18 ± 0.22 min in the single-operator group and 6.14 ± 0.25 min in the dual-operator group, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.295). The mean difference was 0.04 min (95% confidence interval, -0.03-0.11). The mean intraoperative blood loss was 4.95 ± 2.41 cm² in the single-operator group and 5.01 ± 2.90 cm² in the dual-operator group, with no statistically significant difference (P = 0.864). The mean difference was -0.06 cm² (95% confidence interval, -0.78-0.66). No adverse surgical events occurred in either group.
CONCLUSION: This pilot comparative study suggests that single-operator circumcision using a penile circumcision and suturing device is feasible and associated with comparable short-term perioperative outcomes. However, the present study was not designed as a formal equivalence or non-inferiority trial, and the absence of statistically significant differences should not be interpreted as proof of equivalence. Further studies are required to confirm safety, long-term outcomes, and potential resource implications.
PMID:42428781 | PMC:PMC13346218 | DOI:10.3389/fsurg.2026.1871497
