23.03.2013 Views

Biomedical Engineering – From Theory to Applications

Biomedical Engineering – From Theory to Applications

Biomedical Engineering – From Theory to Applications

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

326<br />

<strong>Biomedical</strong> <strong>Engineering</strong> <strong>–</strong> <strong>From</strong> <strong>Theory</strong> <strong>to</strong> <strong>Applications</strong><br />

Conventional surgery under general anaesthetic normally uses the sleeve-resection<br />

technique, described in a series of diagrams with technical details by Elder (2007). This<br />

method takes longer and for this reason many surgeons will insist on using a general<br />

anaesthetic. By its nature sleeve resection removes mainly shaft skin, not foreskin, so having<br />

potential implications for HIV infection. An alternative is the Dissection Method. These two<br />

methods are often confused. Illustrated by Mousa (Mousa, 2007), the Dissection Method<br />

separates inner and outer foreskin in a manner similar <strong>to</strong> a very loose "tug and chop"<br />

circumcision, but then proceeds <strong>to</strong> excise most of the inner and all of the outer foreskin<br />

along with some shaft skin. The amount of shaft skin removed depends on the tightness<br />

required; inner foreskin is left only as necessary <strong>to</strong> provide an anchorage for sutures<br />

reconnecting the shaft skin <strong>to</strong> the sulcus.<br />

Interestingly, genital surgery in women often involves a course of <strong>to</strong>pical estrogen in<br />

advance in order <strong>to</strong> increase thickening, cornification and keratinization of the vaginal<br />

epithelium (Short, 2006). This helps surgical outcome and has led <strong>to</strong> the suggestion that<br />

similar pre-treatment be carried out prior <strong>to</strong> circumcision in men.<br />

Pain from conventional surgery can last for up <strong>to</strong> a week or longer afterwards, during which<br />

time absence from work may be required. Some men, however, report no pain, just minor<br />

discomfort from the stitches. A large RCT found that at the 3-day post-circumcision follow-up,<br />

48% reported no pain, 52% very mild pain, and none moderate or severe pain (Bailey et al., 2007).<br />

By 8 days, 89% had no pain and 11% mild pain. Vasec<strong>to</strong>my in men circumcised previously as<br />

adults (and who can thus attest <strong>to</strong> the difference) is said <strong>to</strong> be much more painful.<br />

8.2 Instruments developed over earlier years<br />

The following devices were in common use for male circumcision prior <strong>to</strong> the start of the<br />

HIV epidemic. The patent information quoted relates <strong>to</strong> the country of residence of the<br />

inven<strong>to</strong>r(s). In many instances other patents exist, especially in the USA, the European<br />

Union and, since its formation in 1967, the records of the World Intellectual Property<br />

Organisation (WIPO).<br />

8.2.1 Traditional Jewish shield<br />

Inven<strong>to</strong>r: Unknown<br />

Primary patent: None: his<strong>to</strong>ric<br />

Patent priority date: Not applicable<br />

Patient age range: Full-term neonate <strong>to</strong> adult<br />

Category: Tug-&-Chop shield<br />

Fig. 4. The traditional Jewish shield.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!