Abstract
A 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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
