Secondary phimosis after circumcision.


Journal

Turkish journal of urology
ISSN: 2149-3235
Titre abrégé: Turk J Urol
Pays: Turkey
ID NLM: 101643563

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
03 2019
Historique:
received: 24 01 2018
accepted: 13 09 2018
entrez: 16 3 2019
pubmed: 16 3 2019
medline: 16 3 2019
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Male circumcision is one of the most common surgical procedures worldwide. Although it is widely performed because of health issues, in Muslim-majority countries, the primary motivation yielding to male circumcision is religious. It is a relatively safe procedure with a low overall complication rate. We herein report an underrated complication of circumcision that can be termed as "secondary phimosis." The medical records of 25 boys with post-circumcision secondary phimosis were reviewed. Demographics of the patients, method of circumcision, type of provider, peroperative findings and comorbidities were recorded. Between January 2005 and December 2016, 25 boys with post-circumcision secondary phimosis were treated surgically. The median age of the patients was 3 (2-5) years. The majority of the patients were circumcised by the Gomco clamp or Plastibell method (n=16). Of the patients' circumcisions, six were performed by the freehand method, and three by the dorsal slit method. In 15 boys, circumcision was performed by a traditional provider. Of the boys, seven were circumcised by a physician, and three were circumcised by a pediatric surgeon. All the patients were re-circumcised. The common peroperative finding was the redundant mucosal inner layer of the prepucium. Excess suprapubic fat was present in 12 patients. Although circumcision is known as a minor surgical practice with low complication rate, it must be performed safely and especially by experienced physicians/surgeons. Secondary phimosis is a technical error that is caused by insufficient removal of the inner mucosal layer of the prepucium. Re-circumcision of the patient is inevitable, causing the patient second trauma.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30875291
pii: tud.2018.94984
doi: 10.5152/tud.2018.94984
pmc: PMC6368045
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

135-138

Références

Urol Clin North Am. 2004 Aug;31(3):461-7, viii
pubmed: 15313055
J Urol. 2005 Mar;173(3):978-81
pubmed: 15711354
ScientificWorldJournal. 2011;11:2458-68
pubmed: 22235177
Pediatrics. 2012 Sep;130(3):e756-85
pubmed: 22926175
Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2012 Sep;94(6):e186-8
pubmed: 22943316

Auteurs

Tunç Özdemir (T)

Department of Pediatric Surgery, University of Medical Sciences, Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, İzmir, Turkey.

Ali Sayan (A)

Department of Pediatric Surgery, University of Medical Sciences, Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, İzmir, Turkey.

Belce Candan (B)

Department of Pediatric Surgery, University of Medical Sciences, Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, İzmir, Turkey.

Gizem Orhan (G)

Department of Pediatric Surgery, University of Medical Sciences, Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, İzmir, Turkey.

Gökhan Köylüoğlu (G)

Department of Pediatric Surgery, Katip Çelebi University Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, İzmir, Turkey.

Classifications MeSH