Cargando…

Megaprepuce Reconstruction: A Single Center Experience

INTRODUCTION: Surgical 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 an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Podestá, Miguel Luis, Podestá, Miguel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5869308/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29616205
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2018.00064
_version_ 1783309264543023104
author Podestá, Miguel Luis
Podestá, Miguel
author_facet Podestá, Miguel Luis
Podestá, Miguel
author_sort Podestá, Miguel Luis
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Surgical 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 METHODS: Fifteen 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). RESULTS: Short-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. CONCLUSION: Our 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5869308
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58693082018-04-03 Megaprepuce Reconstruction: A Single Center Experience Podestá, Miguel Luis Podestá, Miguel Front Pediatr Pediatrics INTRODUCTION: Surgical 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 METHODS: Fifteen 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). RESULTS: Short-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. CONCLUSION: Our 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. Frontiers Media S.A. 2018-03-20 /pmc/articles/PMC5869308/ /pubmed/29616205 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2018.00064 Text en Copyright © 2018 Podestá and Podestá. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Pediatrics
Podestá, Miguel Luis
Podestá, Miguel
Megaprepuce Reconstruction: A Single Center Experience
title Megaprepuce Reconstruction: A Single Center Experience
title_full Megaprepuce Reconstruction: A Single Center Experience
title_fullStr Megaprepuce Reconstruction: A Single Center Experience
title_full_unstemmed Megaprepuce Reconstruction: A Single Center Experience
title_short Megaprepuce Reconstruction: A Single Center Experience
title_sort megaprepuce reconstruction: a single center experience
topic Pediatrics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5869308/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29616205
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fped.2018.00064
work_keys_str_mv AT podestamiguelluis megaprepucereconstructionasinglecenterexperience
AT podestamiguel megaprepucereconstructionasinglecenterexperience