Use of topical versus injectable anaesthesia for ShangRing circumcisions in men and boys in Kenya: Results from a randomized controlled trial.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
15
07
2018
accepted:
26
05
2019
entrez:
15
8
2019
pubmed:
15
8
2019
medline:
7
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The ShangRing is a disposable, collar clamp circumcision device pre-qualified for use in men and boys 13 years and above. It has been shown to be faster than conventional circumcision with comparable adverse event (AE) rates and high client satisfaction. Voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) has been shown to dramatically reduce the risk of HIV acquisition in males. However, the fear of pain during circumcision is an important barrier to uptake. Use of topical anesthesia thus presents an opportunity to address this. We sought to evaluate the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of the use of topical anaesthesia with ShangRing circumcision of men and boys 10 years of age and above. Participants were randomised 2:1 to receive topical or injectable anaesthesia. All participants underwent no-flip ShangRing circumcision. The primary outcome measure was pain. Secondary outcomes included ease of use of topical versus injectable anaesthesia, AEs and participant satisfaction. Compared to the topical group, participants in the injectable group reported significantly more pain on administration of the anesthesia and at approximately 20 minutes after the procedure. In the topical group, sufficient anaesthesia with topical cream was not achieved in 21 (9.3%) cases before the start of the procedure; in another 6 (2.6%), supplementary injectable anaesthesia was required as the circumcision was being carried out. The AE rate was significantly lower (p<0.01) in the topical (0%) vs. the injectable group (4.2%). The most common AE was pain during the post-operative period. All AEs were managed conservatively and resolved without sequeale. 96.7% of participants were satisfied with the appearance of the healed penis and 100% would recommend the ShangRing to others. All seven male circumcision providers involved in the study preferred topical to injectable anaesthesia. Our results demonstrate the safety, improved clinical experience, effectiveness, and acceptability of the use of topical anaesthesia in ShangRing circumcision using the no-flip technique. Topical anaesthesia effectively eliminates needlestick pain from the clients' VMMC experience and thus has the potential to increase demand for the service. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02390310.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The ShangRing is a disposable, collar clamp circumcision device pre-qualified for use in men and boys 13 years and above. It has been shown to be faster than conventional circumcision with comparable adverse event (AE) rates and high client satisfaction. Voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) has been shown to dramatically reduce the risk of HIV acquisition in males. However, the fear of pain during circumcision is an important barrier to uptake. Use of topical anesthesia thus presents an opportunity to address this.
OBJECTIVES
We sought to evaluate the safety, effectiveness and acceptability of the use of topical anaesthesia with ShangRing circumcision of men and boys 10 years of age and above.
METHODS
Participants were randomised 2:1 to receive topical or injectable anaesthesia. All participants underwent no-flip ShangRing circumcision. The primary outcome measure was pain. Secondary outcomes included ease of use of topical versus injectable anaesthesia, AEs and participant satisfaction.
RESULTS
Compared to the topical group, participants in the injectable group reported significantly more pain on administration of the anesthesia and at approximately 20 minutes after the procedure. In the topical group, sufficient anaesthesia with topical cream was not achieved in 21 (9.3%) cases before the start of the procedure; in another 6 (2.6%), supplementary injectable anaesthesia was required as the circumcision was being carried out. The AE rate was significantly lower (p<0.01) in the topical (0%) vs. the injectable group (4.2%). The most common AE was pain during the post-operative period. All AEs were managed conservatively and resolved without sequeale. 96.7% of participants were satisfied with the appearance of the healed penis and 100% would recommend the ShangRing to others. All seven male circumcision providers involved in the study preferred topical to injectable anaesthesia.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results demonstrate the safety, improved clinical experience, effectiveness, and acceptability of the use of topical anaesthesia in ShangRing circumcision using the no-flip technique. Topical anaesthesia effectively eliminates needlestick pain from the clients' VMMC experience and thus has the potential to increase demand for the service.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02390310.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31412032
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0218066
pii: PONE-D-18-17794
pmc: PMC6693766
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anesthetics
0
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02390310']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0218066Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. MB, MK, BC, and PM work for Bon Santé Consulting, which was contracted to provide data management and statistical support for the study. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors MAB, PSL, RKL, DO, MO, NO, DM, and QDA via the grant that supported this work. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.
Références
AIDS Care. 2005 Feb;17(2):182-94
pubmed: 15763713
PLoS Med. 2005 Nov;2(11):e298
pubmed: 16231970
AIDS Behav. 2006 Jul;10(4):377-85
pubmed: 16736112
PLoS Med. 2006 Jul;3(7):e262
pubmed: 16822094
AIDS Behav. 2007 May;11(3):341-55
pubmed: 17053855
PLoS Med. 2006 Dec;3(12):e517
pubmed: 17194197
Lancet. 2007 Feb 24;369(9562):643-56
pubmed: 17321310
Lancet. 2007 Feb 24;369(9562):657-66
pubmed: 17321311
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011 May 1;57(1):e7-12
pubmed: 21346586
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2011 Dec 15;58(5):e127-34
pubmed: 21909032
PLoS Med. 2011 Nov;8(11):e1001132
pubmed: 22140367
AIDS. 2012 Mar 13;26(5):609-15
pubmed: 22210632
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2012 Jul 1;60(3):e82-9
pubmed: 22343180
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2012 Sep 1;61(1):49-55
pubmed: 22739133
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013 Aug 15;63(5):617-21
pubmed: 23614991
AIDS. 2013 Nov 28;27(18):2899-907
pubmed: 23835501
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014 Apr 1;65(4):447-55
pubmed: 24583615
PLoS Med. 2014 May 06;11(5):e1001641
pubmed: 24800840
PLoS One. 2014 May 06;9(5):e85051
pubmed: 24802746
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2014 Dec 1;67(4):430-7
pubmed: 25162816
Afr J AIDS Res. 2014;13(2):179-87
pubmed: 25174635
Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2014 Dec;20(12):1113-9
pubmed: 25597180
PLoS One. 2015 Mar 30;10(3):e0121686
pubmed: 25822727
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016 Jun 1;72 Suppl 1:S13-7
pubmed: 27331584
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016 Jun 1;72 Suppl 1:S36-42
pubmed: 27331588
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016 Jun 1;72 Suppl 1:S5-S12
pubmed: 27331591
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2016 Aug 15;72 Suppl 4:S306-10
pubmed: 27404013
J Int AIDS Soc. 2017 Jul 12;20(1):21588
pubmed: 28715157