Alisklamp versus Conventional Dorsal Slit Circumcision: A Multicentric Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: There are numerous methods of circumcision performed worldwide, typically classified into two main groups: conventional surgical techniques and various device-assisted techniques. Each method has its own advantages, limitations, and potential complications. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of the Alisklamp technique versus the dorsal slit technique in male circumcision procedures. Method: This multicenter RCT compared the dorsal slit and Alisklamp techniques for circumcision, assessing patient demographics and intraoperative and postoperative outcomes. All patients, under local anesthesia via dorsal penile nerve block, were discharged on the same day and followed up at 24–48 h, 1 week, and 1 month. Results: A total of 180 patients enrolled, and 166 patients were included. The study compared postoperative outcomes between the Alisklamp (AK) and dorsal slit (DS) circumcision techniques in 166 patients. Key findings included significantly higher penile edema in the DS group (19%) compared to the AK group (2.4%) (p < 0.001), with severe edema occurring only in the DS group. Wound gaping was more common in the AK group (8.3%) compared to the DS group (1.2%) (p = 0.030). Skin tunnels were observed only in the DS group (9.5%) (p = 0.004). There were no significant differences in nausea, vomiting, bleeding, necrosis, infection, wound dehiscence, chordee, rotational anomalies, or secondary phimosis between the groups. Mean operation time was lower in the AK group than the DS group (7.8 min vs. 15.5 min; p < 0.001). Conclusions: The Alisklamp technique is recommended as the preferred method for circumcision because it minimizes complications, shortens the procedure time, and is easy to apply.