Variations in Penile Anatomy and Their Contribution to Medical Mischief

Abstract

It is clear that the human penis is as individual as a fingerprint, so that no two are alike. Some of the variations have been used as justifications for circumcision, but are they common or genuinely pathological? And can the modern standardized methods ("one size fits all") provide a predictable result in the face of such variation or any therapeutic value? Three of these variations will be reviewed for their nature and significance.

Ectopic folliculosebaceous units at the coronal sulcus

“…He never published his observations, but he noted them in a syllabus that was distributed to his students . Tyson inserted the words ‘Glandula Mucilaginosa’ under the heading ‘Urethra Ejus’ with a footnote stating that he had discovered such glands . A modern interpretation is that his observations might have been in reference to primates rather than humans .…”

“…8 Tyson inserted the words 'Glandula Mucilaginosa' under the heading 'Urethra Ejus' with a footnote stating that he had discovered such glands. 3 A modern interpretation is that his observations might have been in reference to primates rather than humans. 7 According to others, Tyson might have described the condition that is at the present known as papillomatosis corona penis, 1 which is not related to sebaceous glands.…”

“…It has been questioned if Tyson actually described sebaceous glands or instead what is at present known as papillomatosis corona penis . Tyson's glands were mentioned by Cowper some years later with some additional descriptions but without any images or drawings on the subject . This supported the assertion that such glands were indeed an anatomic fact, which has been repeated through history and publications with no images of the condition.…”