Preputial plasty: a good alternative to circumcision - PubMed
Comparative Study
Preputial plasty: a good alternative to circumcision
P M Cuckow et al. J Pediatr Surg. 1994 Apr.
Abstract
Since 1991, boys needing surgery for tight nonretractile foreskin have been offered a choice of preputial plasty or circumcision, providing that there is no clinical evidence of preputial scarring. We compared two similar groups of 50 boys that underwent each procedure, through our routine audit and questionnaires sent to their parents. Of the boys with circumcisions, 20% required an overnight stay after the operation; 14% had anesthetic complications, and 6% required reoperation because of bleeding. Only 8% of patients with preputial plasty had an overnight stay, and no bleeding was observed. Parental assessment of both operations showed that morbidity was significantly less and of shorter duration for the preputial plasty group. Two patients in the preputial plasty group (4%) had recurrent narrowing of the foreskin caused by scarring and contraction of the incision. Parents were pleased with the long-term results of both procedures. This simple alternative to circumcision is easy to perform and allows full mobilization of the foreskin, preserving its function and providing an excellent cosmetic result.
Similar articles
-
[The treatment of phimosis in childhood without circumcision: plastic repair of the prepuce].
Pascotto R, Giancotti E. Pascotto R, et al. Minerva Chir. 1998 Jun;53(6):561-5. Minerva Chir. 1998. PMID: 9774854 Italian.
-
Dessanti A, Ginesu G, Iannuccelli M, Balata A. Dessanti A, et al. J Pediatr Surg. 2005 Apr;40(4):713-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2004.12.008. J Pediatr Surg. 2005. PMID: 15852286
-
"Triple incision plasty". A convenient procedure for preputial relief.
Wåhlin N. Wåhlin N. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1992;26(2):107-10. doi: 10.1080/00365599.1992.11690439. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1992. PMID: 1626197
-
Cost-effective treatment of phimosis.
Van Howe RS. Van Howe RS. Pediatrics. 1998 Oct;102(4):E43. doi: 10.1542/peds.102.4.e43. Pediatrics. 1998. PMID: 9755280 Review.
-
Complete removal of the foreskin--why?
Miernik A, Hager S, Frankenschmidt A. Miernik A, et al. Urol Int. 2011;86(4):383-7. doi: 10.1159/000324835. Epub 2011 Apr 7. Urol Int. 2011. PMID: 21474914 Review.
Cited by
-
Zavras N, Tsamoudaki S, Ntomi V, Yiannopoulos I, Christianakis E, Pikoulis E. Zavras N, et al. Korean J Pain. 2015 Oct;28(4):244-53. doi: 10.3344/kjp.2015.28.4.244. Epub 2015 Oct 2. Korean J Pain. 2015. PMID: 26495079 Free PMC article.
-
Angotti R, Molinaro F, Ferrara F, Pellegrino C, Bindi E, Fusi G, Messina M. Angotti R, et al. Gland Surg. 2018 Apr;7(2):228-233. doi: 10.21037/gs.2018.02.04. Gland Surg. 2018. PMID: 29770316 Free PMC article.
-
Warren JP, Smith PD, Dalton JD, Edwards GR, Foden M, Preston R, Stewart P, Roberts A, Cookson PC, Elliott J, Phillips JS, Williams J, Mallinson-Read M, Morris I, Bowring J, Warburton R, Blazeby J, Peters T, Moore J, Stevens J. Warren JP, et al. BMJ. 1996 Feb 10;312(7027):377. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7027.377a. BMJ. 1996. PMID: 8611846 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Acceptability and outcomes of foreskin preservation for phimosis: An Indian perspective.
Balaji BS, Jacob TJK, Gowri MS. Balaji BS, et al. J Family Med Prim Care. 2020 May 31;9(5):2297-2302. doi: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_49_20. eCollection 2020 May. J Family Med Prim Care. 2020. PMID: 32754491 Free PMC article.
-
Is preputioplasty effective and acceptable?
Barber NJ, Chappell B, Carter PG, Britton JP. Barber NJ, et al. J R Soc Med. 2003 Sep;96(9):452-3. doi: 10.1177/014107680309600909. J R Soc Med. 2003. PMID: 12949202 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical