Comparison of Plastibell Circumcision with Conventional Circumcision in Infants at Tertiary Care Centre

Main Article Content

Mohammed Moinuddin
Nandkishor Shinde
Ravindra Devani
Ashfaq Ahmad


Objective: Evaluate two methods in terms of the incidence of complications in infants.

Materials and Methods: The present study was conducted on 560 infants who were brought for religious or ritual circumcision to the Pediatric Surgery unit. Infants were randomly divided into two groups, Plastibell group and conventional group based on the type of intervention. Randomization was done in all cases unless the parents insisted on a particular method for circumcision. Plastibell circumcision and conventional circumcision were done as an outpatient procedure in all the cases. Follow up was done on 3rd day, 15th day and on day of separation of the plastibell in plastibell group and were told to contact earlier, in case of any complication.

Results: During the study period, a total of 560 children with age less than 12 months fulfilling the inclusion criteria were analyzed. Out of 560 cases, 310 cases were of Plastibell circumcision group and 250 cases were of conventional circumcision group. The mean number of days for plastibell to separate was 6.2 days (3-12 days); Cosmetic results were similar in both the methods. Out of the total 560 cases, the successful rate of circumcision without any complication, were recorded in 475 (84.82%) cases. A total of 65 cases out of 310 in Plastibell group and 20 cases out of 250 in conventional group developed complications. Complications like bleeding, localized superficial infection occurred most commonly in Plastibell circumcision group.

It was concluded that the Plastibell device is a satisfactory method for circumcising children of this age group.

Plastibell, conventional, circumcision, infants

Article Details

How to Cite
Moinuddin, M., Shinde, N., Devani, R., & Ahmad, A. (2019). Comparison of Plastibell Circumcision with Conventional Circumcision in Infants at Tertiary Care Centre. Asian Journal of Research in Surgery, 1(2), 1-7. Retrieved from
Original Research Article