Devised by US Army urologists, this device is - as its name suggests - a template and not a fit-&-wear clamp. It still requires the circumciser to have suturing skills. Although similar in appearance to the paediatric Plastibell device, the template does not remain attached to the patient during the healing period.

	Left: The prototype Template, hand-carved from commercially available nonconductive tubular polyvinyl chloride pipe. Nonconductive material appears to have been chosen so as to enable the device to be used in conjunction with electrosurgery and/or electrocautery equipment. The sterilisation process used has not been disclosed. Below: The procedure (details in text)

The equipment needed for the template circumcision procedure is minimal, consisting of 2 forceps, 2 Alice clamps, 1 No. 15 scalpel, a suture needle holder, a 0 nonabsorbable crimping suture or its equivalent and the template. After administration of local anaesthesia, the foreskin is retracted to expose the glans. The size of template is chosen such that the circumference of the glans is 2-3 mm larger than the template. This ensures that the correct amount of skin is removed. If needed, a dorsal slit can be performed. The foreskin is then extended over the template device. The developers of the device report no cases in which a dorsal slit made the procedure more difficult or incapable of being completed with the template.

Next, a crimping suture is tied around the penis in such a position as to align with the groove of the device. The foreskin is then removed (by cutting distal to the suture with cautery or knife using the template as a guide) and discarded. The device is then removed from the penis by cutting the crimping suture, and the skin edges are immediately reapproximated with interrupted absorbable suture.

The Circumcision Template has so far been approved by the USFDA for experimental use only. It is not commercially available.

Published reports:

Decastro B, Gurski J and Peterson A. Adult Template Circumcision: A Prospective, Randomized, Patient-blinded, Comparative Study Evaluating the Safety and Efficacy of a Novel Circumcision Device. UROLOGY 76: 810–814, 2010.

To return to the previous page that you were viewing, please use the BACK button of your browser. Alternatively, click on a link in the text above or choose another topic from the navigation panel below.

CIRCLIST Home Page	Latest News	Glossary  & Anatomy	Considering Circumcision?	Styles & Results	Instruments & Techniques	TOP of this page
	Preferences & Experiences	Rites & Traditions	Circumcision and the Law	Femcirc and FGM	Statistical Surveys
	History of Circumcision	Photography advice	Academic Corner	Site Map	Resources elsewhere

Copyright © 1992 - 2012,  All Rights Reserved CIRCLIST.