Search

Background: Male circumcision is a well‐known old surgery, and several recently developed techniques have been scaled up, including the introduction of laser technology, as alternative approaches to overcome morbidity of conventional surgery scalpel/suture method Objectives: We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies comparing laser circumcision versus conventional circumcision technique in terms of perioperative outcomes and efficacy (complications, unacceptable appearance, reoperation rate) both in children and adults. Materials and methods: This review was performed following the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses framework. Continuous variables were analyzed using the inverse variance of the mean difference with a random effect, 95% confidence interval (CI), and p‐value. The incidence of complications, unacceptable appearance, and reoperation rate were pooled using the Cochran‐Mantel‐Haenszel Method with the random effect model and reported as odds ratio (OR), 95% CI, and p‐value. Significance was set at p‐value ≤0.05 and 95%CI. Results: Seven studies were included. In comparison to the conventional circumcision, laser circumcision shoved lower visual analogue score at 24‐h, and 7 days after surgery, a lower rate of overall complication rate (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.24–0.47, p < 0.001), scarring (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02, 0.41, p = 0.002), and unacceptable appearance (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05, 0.15, p < 0.001). We found no statistically significant difference in surgical time, and incidence of bleeding, infection, wound dehiscence, and reoperation rate. Discussion and conclusion: Our review infers that laser‐assisted circumcision is certainly a safe and strong contender as the procedure of choice in both children and adult populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction and Objectives: To investigate two practical approaches in ureterolithotomy for the treatment of large impacted stones, we carried out the assessment and monitoring of perioperative features of consecutive patients undergoing ureterolithotomy after unfavourable results from endourological treatment., Methods: Of the 110 patients included in the study, 34 underwent laparoscopic ureterolithotomy. Patients were divided into three ureterolithotomy subgroups: group A, 76 open operations; group B, 16 transperitoneoscopies, and group C, 19 retroperitoneoscopies. All procedures were conducted in a specialised urology programme for resident physicians., Results: The patients' age, sex, ASA classification and stone characteristics showed no significant differences between the groups. Overall, the complication rate and operation times recorded were similar. One patient had bilateral stones and both sides were treated in a single transperitoneoscopic procedure. Three retroperitoneoscopies ended up in open surgery due to technical difficulties. A prolonged urinary leakage occurred in 3/35 cases (8.5%), and 2 of these patients were treated by insertion of a ureteral catheter. Both laparoscopic groups had significantly lower analgesia requirements and shorter hospitalisation periods (p < 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively). No patient had stones in the follow-up visit the following month., Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the first prospective comparison of laparoscopic and open ureterolithotomy in a laparoscopic training environment. Although these interventions were conducted by urologists with limited laparoscopic experience, laparoscopy offered significant advantages over traditional open ureterolithotomy, resulting in improved analgesia and shorter hospital stays, but with similar complication rates.