160 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25711156)
1. A systematic review and meta-analysis of circumcision with Shang Ring vs conventional circumcision.
Cao D; Liu L; Hu Y; Wang J; Yuan J; Dong Q; Wei Q
Urology; 2015 Apr; 85(4):799-804. PubMed ID: 25711156
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. [Shang Ring circumcision versus conventional circumcision for redundant prepuce or phimosis: a meta analysis].
Xiao EL; Ding H; Li YQ; Wang ZP
Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue; 2013 Oct; 19(10):935-9. PubMed ID: 24218951
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. [Shang Ring circumcision by transverse incision in the distal penis foreskin and pull-up of the interior board for short frenulum praeputii].
Liu C; Liu XJ; Mu JG; Liu D; Ren YS; Zhang CL
Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue; 2014 Apr; 20(4):329-33. PubMed ID: 24873159
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Comparative efficacy and safety of different circumcisions for patients with redundant prepuce or phimosis: A network meta-analysis.
Huang C; Song P; Xu C; Wang R; Wei L; Zhao X
Int J Surg; 2017 Jul; 43():17-25. PubMed ID: 28522221
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. A randomized clinical study of circumcision with a ring device versus conventional circumcision.
Yue C; Ze-Jun Y; Wu KR; Su XJ; Hu JS; Ma JW; Guo CM; Fang HW; Su R; Zhang Y; Zhang QH
J Urol; 2012 Nov; 188(5):1849-54. PubMed ID: 22999700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. [No-flip method versus external method for Shang Ring circumcision: a meta-analysis].
Cao DH; Liu LR; Yang L; Qian SQ; Lei JH; Yuan JH; Wei Q
Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue; 2014 Dec; 20(12):1113-9. PubMed ID: 25597180
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Modified Circumcision Using the Disposable Circumcision Suture Device in Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Rao JM; Huang H; Chen T; Yang CG; Pan CZ; Deng GC; Shen LJ; Qian XH; Peng MK; Zhou HD; Peng HL
Urology; 2020 Sep; 143():206-211. PubMed ID: 32593627
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Disposable circumcision suture device: clinical effect and patient satisfaction.
Lv BD; Zhang SG; Zhu XW; Zhang J; Chen G; Chen MF; Shen HL; Pei ZJ; Chen ZD
Asian J Androl; 2014; 16(3):453-6. PubMed ID: 24759586
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. [Shang Ring, sleeve and conventional circumcisions for redundant prepuce and phimosis: A comparative study of 918 cases].
Wang R; Chen WJ; Shi WH; Xue YF
Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue; 2013 Apr; 19(4):332-6. PubMed ID: 23678713
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. [A new device for removing Shang ring after circumcision ( a report of 257 cases)].
Zhang JQ; Liu JH; Jin LC; Tian L; Zhang JH; Wang Y; Zhang XD
Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2016 Apr; 96(14):1128-30. PubMed ID: 27095783
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. [Novel no-flip Shang Ring circumcision for adult males: a clinical application study of 528 cases].
Yang BH; Jia C; Liu T; Peng YF
Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue; 2014 Aug; 20(8):709-14. PubMed ID: 25195367
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Chinese Shang Ring Male Circumcision: A Review.
Ma Q; Fang L; Yin WQ; Ma JW; Wu KR; Yan ZJ; Cheng Y
Urol Int; 2018; 100(2):127-133. PubMed ID: 28278508
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. How to choose appropriate ring size for Shang Ring male circumcision.
Cheng Y; Wu K; Yan Z; Guo C; Ma J; Su X; Yang S
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr; 2012 Dec; 61(5):606-9. PubMed ID: 23018373
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. [A novel disposable circumcision device versus conventional surgery in the treatment of redundant prepuce and phimosis].
Zhao YJ; Zhan PC; Chen Q; Cheng W; Ye FZ; Wang YS; Wang JJ; Li JH; Tang ZM
Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue; 2017 Nov; 23(11):1007-1013. PubMed ID: 29738167
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Randomized controlled trial of the shang ring versus conventional surgical techniques for adult male circumcision: safety and acceptability.
Sokal DC; Li PS; Zulu R; Awori QD; Combes SL; Simba RO; Lee R; Hart C; Perchal P; Hawry HJ; Bowa K; Goldstein M; Barone MA
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr; 2014 Apr; 65(4):447-55. PubMed ID: 24583615
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Adult male circumcision with a circular stapler versus conventional circumcision: A prospective randomized clinical trial.
Jin XD; Lu JJ; Liu WH; Zhou J; Yu RK; Yu B; Zhang XJ; Shen BH
Braz J Med Biol Res; 2015 Jun; 48(6):577-82. PubMed ID: 25831203
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. [Shang Ring circumcision versus conventional surgical procedures: comparison of clinical effectiveness].
Li HN; Xu J; Qu LM
Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue; 2010 Apr; 16(4):325-7. PubMed ID: 20626160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. [Shang Ring scissor circumcision versus electrotome circumcision for redundant prepuce].
Tang XH; Zhang P; Ding H; Zhao JH; Tang LL; Fang Q
Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue; 2016 Oct; 22(10):877-881. PubMed ID: 29278467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. [Outward versus inward placement in Shang Ring circumcision for phimosis and redundant prepuce in adult men: analysis of 527 cases].
Xie ST; Chen GY; Wei QH; Liu XT; Jiao L; Tang Y
Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue; 2014 Apr; 20(4):325-8. PubMed ID: 24873158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Application of a novel disposable suture device in circumcision: a prospective non-randomized controlled study.
Zhang Z; Yang B; Yu W; Han Y; Xu Z; Chen H; Chen Y; Dai Y
Int Urol Nephrol; 2016 Apr; 48(4):465-73. PubMed ID: 26797875
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
