Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Feb 23;39(1):138.
doi: 10.1007/s00383-023-05409-x.

Surgical approach to penile reconstruction for shaft skin excision from circumcision

Thomas G W Harris  1 , Preeya Khandge  2 , Wayland J Wu  2   3 , Angelo A Leto Barone  1   4 , Jordan P Steinberg  1   5 , Richard J Redett 3rd  1 , John P Gearhart  6
Affiliations

Surgical approach to penile reconstruction for shaft skin excision from circumcision

Thomas G W Harris et al. Pediatr Surg Int. .

Abstract

Purpose: Circumcision is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures. Complications are infrequent, including bleeding, though can be significant such as shaft skin excision. The aim of this study was to identify mechanism of injury and reconstructive techniques for skin excision using a full thickness skin graft (FTSG) or with the novel application of tissue expanders (TE).

Methods: Patients who underwent penile reconstruction following shaft skin excision from an overzealous circumcision were retrospectively reviewed. The penis was covered using a FTSG, harvested from the groin/hip, or using TE, with expanders placed in residual shaft skin.

Results: Twelve patients experienced significant skin loss (range 65-95%) including 2 with partial glans loss. Ten were reconstructed using a FTSG and 2 with TE. Injury was most frequently from a Mogen clamp (n = 9), or from a Gomco clamp, Plastibell device, and electrocautery burns. Six FTSG patients experienced complications with lymphedema (n = 3) most common.

Conclusion: Shaft skin excision is a devastating complication with risk greatest from Mogen clamp use. TE is preferred as this avoids donor site morbidity which reassures parents but requires sufficient residual skin that can be expanded. Both techniques effectively provide soft tissue coverage with acceptable appearance and long-term function.

Keywords: Circumcision; Circumcision injury; Full thickness skin graft; Penile reconstruction; Skin graft; Tissue expansion.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Wiswell TE, Tencer HL, Welch CA et al (1993) Circumcision in children beyond the neonatal period. Pediatrics 92:791–793. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.92.6.791 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Blalock HJ, Vemulakonda V, Ritchey ML et al (2003) Outpatient management of phimosis following newborn circumcision. J Urol 169:2332–2334. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000067602.42875.d8 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Maizels M, Zaontz M, Donovan J et al (1986) Surgical correction of the buried penis: description of a classification system and a technique to correct the disorder. J Urol 136:268–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)44837-3 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Elbatarny A (2014) Surgical treatment of postcircumcision trapped penis. Ann Pediatr Surg 10:119–124. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.XPS.0000452067.16343.c0 - DOI
    1. Donahoe PK, Keating MA (1986) Preputial unfurling to correct the buried penis. J Pediatr Surg 21:1055–1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3468(86)90007-2 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources