Wound healing rates and wound problems of conventional circumcision compared with ring circumcision: A meta‐analysis

Abstract

AbstractA meta‐analysis investigation was executed to measure the wound healing rates (WHRs) and wound problems (WPs) of conventional circumcision (CC) compared with ring circumcision (RC). A comprehensive literature investigation till March 2023 was applied and 2347 interrelated investigations were reviewed. The 16 chosen investigations enclosed 25 838 individuals, with circumcision, were in the chosen investigations' starting point, 3252 of them were RC, and 2586 were CC. Odds ratio (OR) in addition to 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used to compute the value of the WHRs and WPs of CC compared with RC by the dichotomous or continuous approaches and a fixed or random model. RC had a significantly lower wound infection rate (WIR) (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37‐0.91, P = .002) and wound bleeding rate (WBR) (OR, 0.22; 95% CI, 0.12‐0.42, P < .001) compared with those with CC. However, RC and CC had no significant difference in WHR (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, −0.73 to 5.09, P = .14), wound edema rate (WER) (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.92‐1.33, P = .28), and wound dehiscence rate (WDR) (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.60‐1.58, P = .93). RC had significantly lower WIR, and WBR, however, no significant difference in WHR, WER, and WDR compared with those with CC. However, care must be exercised when dealing with its values because of the low sample size of some of the nominated investigations for the meta‐analysis.