Display Settings:


Send to:

Choose Destination
J Urol. 2012 Nov;188(5):1849-54. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.07.048. Epub 2012 Sep 19.

A randomized clinical study of circumcision with a ring device versus conventional circumcision.

Author information

  • 1Departments of Urology, First Hospital, Medical College of Ningbo University, Ningbo, People's Republic of China. Electronic address: dongbaba2@hotmail.com.



We investigated the safety and efficacy of Shang Ring™ male circumcision and conventional sleeve resection circumcision in a randomized study.


During the same period, 479 cases of Shang Ring circumcision and 354 of sleeve resection circumcision were performed. Complete followup data were evaluated on the 2 groups. Operative time, pain score, blood loss, postoperative complications, wound healing time and treatment costs were compared.


There was no statistically significant difference in average age and foreskin status between the 2 groups preoperatively (p >0.05). Compared to the conventional group, there were shorter operative time, less blood loss and a lower intraoperative pain score in the ring group (p <0.05). In addition, ring male circumcision showed a lower complication rate than conventional circumcision (6.89% vs 13.28%, p = 0.002). However, wound healing time in the ring group was longer than in the conventional group (mean ± SD 19.86 ± 5.24 vs 13.42 ± 2.35 days, p <0.001).


Shang Ring male circumcision is a safe, efficient procedure with a relatively low complication rate and high patient satisfaction. It may be worthwhile to popularize this method, especially in countries where the general population has low to limited resources.

Copyright © 2012 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk