Male circumcision performed with 8-figure non-absorbable suture technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We analyze the outcome of circumcisions performed with 8-figure non-absorbable suture (8FNS) and assess the feasibility of using the technique in male circumcision. METHODS: We randomly divided 317 patients who would undergo circumcision between February 2009 and January 2012 into 2 groups. Each group was subdivided into children (age range: 7 to 15 years) and adult (range: 16 to 85 years). In the experiment group (n =166), we used 8FNS and in control group (n = 151), commonly absorbable suture (CAS) were used for the circumcised wound closure. The results of 2 groups were compared. We also performed a cost analysis and a mean 6-month follow-up (range: 1-12). Chi-square and Student's t-test were used in statistical analysis. Differences were considered significant (p < 0.05). RESULTS: No patients were required to remove their sutures postoperatively. Among them, the sutures of the 8FNS for circumcision fell off spontaneously within 9 days (6.2 ± 1.57). There was no statistically significant difference between the 2 groups in surgical duration (16.2 ± 1.73 vs. 15.8 ± 2.01) and follow-up time (6.4 ± 3.82 vs. 6.2 ± 2.39). The overall complication rate of the 2 groups was 6.63% and 10.53% (p = 0.15), respectively. In addition, the complication rate among the adults was significantly lower in the 8FNS group compared to children (2.53% vs. 10.34%, p = 0.04). Also, the average cost (in US dollars) of 8FNS for circumcision was $20.7 ± $3.83 less than $35.8 ± $5.02 of CAS, which is a very significant difference (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: 8FNS for circumcision is feasible, easy, safe and cost-effective, especially for adult males.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".