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...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
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 |