Congenital megaprepuce: a new alternative technique for surgical correction

Leão, Jovelino Quintino de Souza; Filho, Luiz G. Freitas; Gomes, Adriano Luis; Heinsich, Antonio C.; Carnevale, José

doi:10.1590/s1677-55382008000300008

Cited by 13 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In summary, the technique described herein has provided nice and durable penile appearance with an initial low complication rate. Our data suggest that excision of the inner foreskin layer and penile coverage with the dorsal one provides better cosmetic results than with the use of the inner layer to resurface the penis and confirms the reports of other authors ( 1 , 5 , 15 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…In agreement with other authors, we do not recommend initial circumcision as part of megaprepuce reconstruction, as this surgical step may remove skin needed for penile coverage ( 1 , 5 , 16 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…Partial scrotal transposition was associated with the megaprepuce in 80% of the cases. Thus, we elected to extend the ventral skin incision at the penoscrotal junction, surrounding the partial scrotal engulfment on either side of the penile shaft, following Leao et al technique ( 5 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Intraoperative caudal anesthetic block was routinely performed. This surgical procedure has similarities with other methods previously used in the treatment of this abnormality ( 1 , 4 , 5 ). Follow-up ranged from 2 to 7 years (mean 4.6).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…In 1994, O’Brien et al ( 2 ) reported this condition and named it congenital megaprepuce. Since its introduction several surgical techniques have been described for the treatment of this deformity ( 2 – 5 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Megaprepuce Reconstruction: A Single Center Experience

Podestá

2018

Front. Pediatr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionSurgical treatment of congenital megaprepuce is challenging and controversial. We report our 10-year experience treating patients with this deformity using a standardized procedure that has similarities to a technique reported by Smeulders et al. (1). Our postoperative complications and mid-term follow-up cosmetic appearance of the genitalia after reconstruction are reviewed.Material and methodsFifteen patients operated on between 2005 and 2015 were evaluated. Age at surgical repair ranged from 3 to 20 months (mean 9). Treatment included unfolding the preputial sac via a ventral approach, excision of redundant inner preputial skin, and ventral skin coverage with the outer preputial layer. Twelve patients presented associated partial scrotal engulfment, which was simultaneously treated. Mean follow-up was 4.6 years (range 2–7 years).ResultsShort-term complications occurred in three patients: scrotal hematoma in one patient and small skin dehiscence at the penoscrotal junction in two patients. Skin disruption healed by secondary epithelial ingrowth. All cases resulted in a satisfactory genital cosmetic outcome. There were no late complications. All patients preserved normal external genitalia appearance.ConclusionOur experience is in agreement with reports of other authors; suggesting that excision of the inner preputial layer and using the external one for penile coverage provide good and durable mid-term esthetic results in megaprepuce reconstruction.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%