Prospective randomized trial comparing dissection with Plastibell® circumcision

Elmore, 2002, Topical steroid therapy as an alternative to circumcision for phimosis in boys younger than 3 years, J Urol, 168, 1746, 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)64404-7 Pileggi, 2007, Phimotic ring topical corticoid cream (0,1% mometasone furoate) treatment in children, J Pediatr Surg, 42, 1749, 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2007.05.035 Freitas, 2006, Topical treatment for phimosis: time span and other factors behind treatment effectiveness, J Pediatr Urol, 2, 380, 10.1016/j.jpurol.2006.05.006 Orsola, 2000, Conservative treatment of phimosis in children using a topical steroid, Urology, 56, 307, 10.1016/S0090-4295(00)00576-8 Hirji, 2005, Male circumcision: a review of the evidence, J Mens Health Gend, 2, 21, 10.1016/j.jmhg.2005.01.009 Laumann, 1997, Circumcision in the United States: prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice, JAMA, 277, 1052, 10.1001/jama.277.13.1052 Tucker, 2001, Circumcision: a refined technique and 5 year review, Ann R Coll Surg Engl, 83, 121 Subramaniam, 2004, Sutureless circumcision: a prospective randomised controlled study, Pediatr Surg Int, 20, 783, 10.1007/s00383-004-1149-z O'Sullivan, 1996, Circumcision: how do urologists do it?, Br J Urol, 78, 265, 10.1046/j.1464-410X.1996.10822.x Lazarus, 2007, Circumcision complications associated with the Plastibell device, S Afr Med J, 97, 192 Cilento, 1999, Plastibell complications revisited, Clin Pediatr (Phila), 38, 685, 10.1177/000992289903801113 Jensen, 1998, Surgery for phimosis with Plastibell. A follow-up study, Ugeskr Laeger, 160, 3920 Mak, 1995, Childhood circumcision: conventional dissection or Plastibell device – a prospective randomized trial, Hong Kong Pract, 17, 101 Fraser, 1981, A randomized trial to assess childhood circumcision with the Plastibell device compared to a conventional dissection technique, Br J Surg, 68, 593, 10.1002/bjs.1800680822 Mousavi, 2008, Circumcision complications associated with the Plastibell device and conventional dissection surgery: a trial of 586 infants of ages up to 12 months, Adv Urol, 606123 Kayaba, 1996, Analysis of Shape and retractability of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys, J Urol, 156, 1813, 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)65544-7 Dunsmuir, 1999, The history of circumcision, Br J Urol, 83, 1 Prucha, 1980, Circumcision? cutting out the routine cut, Can Med Assoc J, 122, 834 Lannon, 1999, Circumcision policy statement. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on circumcision, Pediatrics, 103, 686 Leitch, 1970, Circumcision: a continuing enigma, Aust Pediatr, 6, 59 2005, Policy Statement – Publications Retired and Reaffirmed – American Academy of Pediatrics, Pediatrics, 116, 796, 10.1542/peds.2005-1377 Johnsonbaugh, 1979, Complication of a circumcision performed with a plastic disposable circumcision device: long-term follow-up, Am J Dis Child, 133, 438 Al-Samarrai, 1988, A review of a Plastibell® device in neonatal circumcision in 2,000 instances, Surg Gynecol Obstet, 167, 341 Datta, 1977, Complication from Plastibell® circumcision ring, Urology, 9, 57, 10.1016/0090-4295(77)90286-2 Cilento, 1999, Plastibell® complications revisited, Clin Pediatr (Phila), 38, 685, 10.1177/000992289903801113 Bode, 2010, Penile injuries from proximal migration of the plastibell circumcision ring, J Pediatr Urol, 6, 23, 10.1016/j.jpurol.2009.05.011 Hutcheson, 2004, Male neonatal circumcision: indications, controversies and complications, Urol Clin North Am, 31, 461, 10.1016/j.ucl.2004.04.011 Kazem, 2010, Comparative evaluation of two techniques of hemostasis in neonatal circumcision using plastibell device, J Pediatr Urol, 6, 258, 10.1016/j.jpurol.2009.08.007 Atalla, 1994, Pathogenesis of post-circumcision adhesions, Pediatr Surg Int, 9, 103, 10.1007/BF00176123 Van Howe, 1997, Variability in penile appearance and penile findings: a prospective study, Br J Urol, 80, 776, 10.1046/j.1464-410X.1997.00467.x Ponsky, 2000, Penile adhesions after neonatal circumcision, J Urol, 164, 495, 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)67410-1