Surgical correction of buried penis: A review of 60 cases

Chuang, Jiin‐Haur; Chen, Liyun; Shieh, Chie-Song; Lee, Shin-Yi

doi:10.1053/jpsu.2001.21606

Cited by 27 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This description is also consistent with CMP. Cuckow's original report only documented six cases followed up for 6 months [6] so there are no reports about the postoperative outcome of their technique, and only a few reports about mid-to long-term follow-up after penoplasty (PP) [7,8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A single surgeon’s experience of 65 cases of penoplasty for congenital megaprepuce, with special reference to mid- to long-term follow-up

Murakami

Yazaki²,

Seo

et al. 2014

Pediatr Surg Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose There are few reports about postoperative outcome of penoplasty (PP). We present the results of mid-to long-term follow-up of PP performed for congenital megaprepuce (CMP). Methods Data from 65 CMP cases treated by PP performed by a single surgeon from 2000 to 2014 were collected prospectively. All cases were treated using the technique reported by Cuckow (Pediatric surgery. Springer, Berlin, pp [543][544][545][546][547][548][549][550][551][552][553][554] 2006). Results Mean age at PP was 5.9 years (range 0.4-13.9). All cases presented as infants and some 12 cases (18.5 %) had PP when 10 or more years old. There were no intraand postoperative complications. Mean duration of followup was 3.6 years (range 0.1-17.5). Duration of follow-up was 4 years or less in 48 (73.8 %), 5-9 years in 13 (20.0 %), and 10 or more years in 4 (6.2 %). While postoperative penile cosmesis was good in 63/65 (96.9 %) cases without scrotal deformity, 2/65 (3.1 %) had redundant penile skin excised upon the recommendation of the treating surgeon even though the patients and parents were unconcerned. Conclusion Mid-to long-term follow-up of our PP cases shows that outcome is cosmetically acceptable and stable.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A single surgeon’s experience of 65 cases of penoplasty for congenital megaprepuce, with special reference to mid- to long-term follow-up

Murakami

Yazaki²,

Seo

et al. 2014

Pediatr Surg Int

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This cluster of anatomical changes can make surgical correction difficult as there is a limited amount of ventral penile shaft skin available for a cosmetically suitable reconstruction. To address this paucity of tissue, many techniques have been described [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Ventral V-plasty: a simple procedure for the reconstruction of a congenital megaprepuce

Alexander

Lorenzo

Salle

et al. 2010

Journal of Pediatric Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Buried penis was originally described by Keyes in 1919 (1,2). It is an uncommon condition in which the penis appears completely or almost completely obscured by preputial skin (1−5).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, not all authors find fixation sutures necessary (5), and rely on the natural healing process to establish fixation of the shaft skin to the corporeal bodies (7). Finally, excision of excess or redundant shaft skin is usually performed and considered mandatory, as this avoids a 'bulky' penis postoperativelyimproving cosmetic outcome and obviating the need for further surgical intervention to correct same (1,15). Some authors add lipectomy or liposuction when the procedure is performed in obese boys (2,17,20), however, this has not been found to be necessary, as the results of penoplasty alone in obese boys is just as effective (3,4), as was noted in our index case 2.…”

Section: Penoplasty Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%