Secondary Phimosis due to Circumcision

Year 2018, Volume: 16 Issue: 3, 28 - 36, 03.12.2018

Mesut Kaçar Erhan Demirelli , Ural Oğuz Ercan Öğreden

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In this study we aimed to present the secondary phimosis cases after circumcision as a complication of circumcision and demographic data of the patients.

METHODS: The data of 47 patients revised because of secondary phimosis developing after circumcision were analyzed retrospectively. The demographic data of the patients were evaluated.

RESULTS: The mean ages of 47 patients were 2.84 years (5 months-11 years). All of the patients had been circumcised under local anesthesia by a non-physician circumciser in the home environment. 37 patients were consulted in the first six months after circumcision, and the remaining 10 patients were consulted in the later period (6 months-8 years). It was found in all patients that both penile skin and mucous was left longer than usual and fibrotic ring which grew out during the healing tightened the glans penis. All disorders were corrected surgically. None of the patients in the early and late postoperative follow-up showed any complications.

DISCUSSION and CONCLUSION: Our study reveals that secondary phimosis is a complication requiring circumcision revision and may develop after circumcision made by non-physicians and out of the hospital or a health organization. Moreover, the study shows that sleeve resection technique circumcision is a safe and successful method for revision in the hospital. The limitations of our study are that it is retrospective and there is no control group.

Keywords

Circumcision, complication, secondary phimosis, circumcision revision

Sünnete Bağlı Olarak Gelişen Sekonder Fimozis

Abstract

GİRİŞ ve AMAÇ: Bu çalışmada bir sünnet komplikasyonu olarak sünnet
sonrası sekonder fimozis olgularını ve hastaların demografik verilerini
göstermeyi amaçladık.

YÖNTEM ve GEREÇLER: Sünnet sonrası gelişen sekonder fimozis nedeniyle
revizyon yapılan 47 hastanın verileri retrospektif incelendi. Hastaların
demografik verileri değerlendirildi.

BULGULAR: Kırk yedi hastanın yaş ortalaması 2.84 yıl (5 ay – 11 yıl) idi.
Hastaların tamamı hekim olmayan sünnetçiler tarafından lokal anestezi ile ev
ortamında sünnet edilmişti. 37 hasta sünnet sonrası ilk altı ay içinde, kalan
10 hasta ise daha geç dönemde (6 ay-8 yıl) başvurmuşlardı. Tüm hastalarda
mukozanın daha fazla olmak üzere hem mukoza hem de penil derinin normalden daha
uzun bırakıldığı ve iyileşme sırasında oluşan fibrotik halkanın glans penisi
sıktığı saptanmıştır. Ameliyatta tüm bozukluklar düzeltilmiştir. Postoperatif
erken ve geç dönem takiplerinde hastaların hiçbirisinde herhangi bir
komplikasyon görülmemiştir.

TARTIŞMA ve SONUÇ: Bizim çalışmamız, hastane ya da sağlık kuruluşları
dışında hekim olmayan kişilerce yapılan sünnetlerde sekonder fimozisin sünnet
revizyonu gerektiren bir komplikasyon olduğuna ve hastanede yapılan sünnet
revizyonlarında sleeve rezeksiyon tekniğinin güvenli ve başarılıyla
uygulanabileceğine dikkat çekmektedir. Çalışmamızın limitasyoları ise, bu
çalışmanın retrospectif olması ve bir kontrol grubunun bulunmamasıdır.

Keywords

Sünnet, komplikasyon, sekonder fimosis, sünnet revizyonu

References

• 1. Rizvi SA, Naqvi SA, Hussain M, et al. Religious circumcision: a Muslim view. BJU Int. 1999 Jan;83 Suppl 1:13-6.
• 2. Singh-Grewal D, Macdessi J, Craig J. Circumcision for the prevention of urinary tract infection in boys: a systematic review of randomised trials and observational studies. Arch Dis Child. 2005; 90(8):853–8.
• 3. Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2007; 369(9562):657–66.
• 4. Ladizinski B, Rukhman E, Lee KC. Male circumcision as a religious ritual. JAMA Dermatol. 2014 Jan;150(1):103. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2013.8367.
• 5. Mwashambwa MY, Mwampagatwa IH, Rastegaev A, et al. The male circumcision: the oldest ancient procedure, its past, present and future roles. Tanzan J Health Res. 2013 Jul;15(3):199-204.
• 6. Weiss HA, Larke N, Halperin D, et al. Complications of circumcision in male neonates, infants and children: a systematic review. BMC Urol. 2010 Feb 16;10:2. doi: 10.1186/1471-2490-10-2.
• 7. Williams N, Kapila L. Complications of circumcision. Br J Surg. 1993; 80(10):1231–6.
• 8. Al-Ghazo MA, Banihani KE. Circumcision revision in male children. Int Braz J Urol. 2006 Jul-Aug;32(4):454-8.
• 9. Blank S, Brady M, Buerk E, et al. Male circumcision. Pediatrics. 2012 Sep;130(3):e756-85. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-1990.
• 10. Bossio JA, Pukall CF, Steele S. A review of the current state of the male circumcision literature. J Sex Med. 2014 Dec;11(12):2847-64. doi: 10.1111/jsm.12703.
• 11. Bicer S, Kuyrukluyildiz U, Akyol F, et al. At what age range should children be circumcised? Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2015 Mar 20;17(3):e26258. doi: 10.5812/ircmj.26258.
• 12. Utanğaç MM, Dağgülü M, Yağmur İ. Comparison of circumcisions performed before and during adolescence. Dicle Med J. 2013;40(3):396-400. doi: 10.5798/diclemedj.0921.2013.03.0296
• 13. Weiss HA, Larke N, Halperin D, et al. Complications of circumcision in male neonates, infants and children: a systematic review. BMC Urol. 2010 Feb 16;10:2. doi: 10.1186/1471-2490-10-2.
• 14. Cao D, Liu L, Hu Y, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of circumcision with Shang Ring vs conventional circumcision. Urology. 2015 Apr;85(4):799-804. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2014.12.007.
• 15. Mousavi SA, Salehifar E. Circumcision complications associated with the Plastibell device and conventional dissection surgery: a trial of 586 infants of ages up to 12 months. Adv Urol. 2008:606123. doi: 10.1155/2008/606123.
• 16. Brisson PA, Patel HI, Feins NR. Revision of circumcision in children: Report of 56 cases. J Pediatr Surg. 2002 Sep;37(9):1343-6.
• 17. Kokorowski PJ, Routh JC, Hubert K, et al. Trends in revision circumcision at pediatric hospitals. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2013 Aug;52(8):699-706. doi: 10.1177/0009922813492878.
• 18. Yegane RA, Kheirollahi AR, Salehi NA, et al. Late complications of circumcision in Iran. Pediatr Surg Int. 2006 May;22(5):442-5.
• 19. Darby R. To avoid circumcision complications, avoid circumcision. Can Urol Assoc J. 2014 Jul;8(7-8):231. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.1709.
• 20. Ozdemir E. Significantly increased complication risk with mass circumcisions. Br J Urol 1997; 80: 136–9.
• 21. Atikeler MK, Geçit I, Yüzgeç V, et al. Complications of circumcision performed within and outside the hospital. Int Urol Nephrol. 2005;37(1):97-9.
• 22. Naji H, Mustafa R. Circumcision of preschool boys in Baghdad, Iraq: prevalence, current practice and complications. Front Med. 2013 Mar;7(1):122-5. doi: 10.1007/s11684-013-0242-x.
• 23. Mayer E, Caruso DJ, Ankem M, et al. Anatomic variants associated with newborn circumcision complications. Can J Urol. 2003 Oct;10(5):2013-6. Pieretti RV, Goldstein AM, Pieretti-Vanmarcke R. Late complications of newborn circumcision: a common and avoidable problem. Pediatr Surg Int. 2010 May;26(5):515-8. doi: 10.1007/s00383-010-2566-9