Advertisement

Y-V plasty of the foreskin as an alternative to circumcision for surgical treatment of phimosis during childhood

      Abstract

      Purpose

      To evaluate the result of Y-V preputioplasty and to compare this with an earlier technique of prepuce-sparing phimosis treatment.

      Materials and methods

      A total of 65 boys were treated surgically for phimosis without removing the foreskin. Indications were the failure of conservative ointment treatment, congenital uropathies (to prevent infections and to make proper cleaning of the glans and the inner preputium possible to ensure clean urine sampling), recurrent balanitis or painful ballooning of the prepuce, and/or the need for urethral instrumentation. Forty-seven patients were treated with one or two Y-V plasties to widen the narrow preputial ring; 18 were treated using transverse closure of longitudinal incisions of the narrow preputial ring.

      Results

      Of the 47 Y-V plasties, two patients had recurring complaints and needed further treatment (4.3%), and of the 18 patients treated by transversely closed longitudinal incisions, two patients had recurring complaints (11%). Recurrences occurred regardless of age and premedication with topical therapy. Cosmesis was considered to be excellent in all cases of Y-V plasty. Few patients complained about skin tags after longitudinal incisions.

      Conclusion

      Y-V plasty of the preputial skin as an alternative to circumcision in the treatment of phimosis has good functional and cosmetic results. It is a minor operation with less impact on the penis than partial or total circumcision. The cosmetic results are superior to those after transversely closed longitudinal incisions.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Pediatric Urology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Oster J.
        Further fate of the foreskin. The incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys.
        Arch Dis Child. 1986; 43: 200-203
        • Delaere K.P.
        • Meulen ter P.H.
        Treatment of phimosis: First ointment.
        NTvU. 2003; 11 ([in Dutch]): 23-27
        • Imamura E.
        Phimosis of infants and young children in Japan.
        Acta Paediatr Jpn. 1997; 39: 403-405
        • Howe Van R.S.
        Cost-effective treatment of phimosis.
        Paediatrics. 1998; 102: E43
        • Ashfield J.E.
        • Nickel K.R.
        • Siemens D.R.
        • MacNeily A.E.
        • Nickel J.C.
        Treatment of phimosis with topical steroids in 194 children.
        J Urol. 2003; 169: 1106-1108
        • Cuckow P.M.
        • Rix G.
        • Mouriquand P.D.E.
        Preputial plasty: a good alternative to circumcision.
        J Pediatr Surg. 1994; 29: 561-563
        • De Castella H.
        Prepuceplasty: an alternative to circumcision.
        Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1994; 76: 257-258
        • Wahlin N.
        ‘Triple incision plasty’. A convenient procedure for preputial relief.
        Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1992; 26: 107-110
      1. (World Wide Web [Accessed January 2006])
      2. (World Wide Web [Accessed January 2006])
      3. (World Wide Web. [Accessed January 2006])
        • Klijn A.J.
        • Dik P.
        • de Jong T.P.
        Results of preputial reconstruction in 77 boys with distal hypospadias.
        J Urol. 2001; 165: 1255-1257