Difference between revisions of "Denuded penis"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (→Case reports: Add case report.) |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) (→Case reports: Add text and citation.) |
||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
|url=http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/vanduyn1/ | |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/vanduyn1/ | ||
|archived= | |archived= | ||
| − | |quote=We believe that these minor excesses of skin loss following | + | |quote=We believe that these minor excesses of skin loss following circumcision must be more common than indicated by the literature, and that many of them should be split grafted to avoid the possibility of a future scarred and/or shortened penile shaft. |
|pubmedID=13924561 | |pubmedID=13924561 | ||
|pubmedCID= | |pubmedCID= | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
|accessdate=2022-01-23 | |accessdate=2022-01-23 | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Sotolongo, Jr. et al. (1985) reported three cases of penile denudation after non-therapeutic circumcision that were treated without surgery.<ref name="sotolongo1985">{{REFjournal | ||
| + | |last=Sotolongo, Jr. | ||
| + | |first= | ||
| + | |init=JR | ||
| + | |author-link= | ||
| + | |last2=Hoffman | ||
| + | |first2= | ||
| + | |init2=S | ||
| + | |author2-link= | ||
| + | |last3=Gribetz | ||
| + | |first3= | ||
| + | |init3ME | ||
| + | |author3-link= | ||
| + | |etal=no | ||
| + | |title=Penile denudation injuries after circumcision | ||
| + | |trans-title= | ||
| + | |language= | ||
| + | |journal=J Urol | ||
| + | |location= | ||
| + | |date=1985-01 | ||
| + | |volume=133 | ||
| + | |issue=1 | ||
| + | |article= | ||
| + | |page= | ||
| + | |pages=102-3 | ||
| + | |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/complications/sotolongo1/ | ||
| + | |archived= | ||
| + | |quote= | ||
| + | |pubmedID=3964862 | ||
| + | |pubmedCID= | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1016/s0022-5347(17)48807-0 | ||
| + | |accessdate=2022-01-24 | ||
| + | }}</ref> | ||
Sinha & Mushtaq (2012) have described one such [[iatrogenic]] event which was treated by split thickness and full-thickness skin grafts.<ref>{{REFjournal | Sinha & Mushtaq (2012) have described one such [[iatrogenic]] event which was treated by split thickness and full-thickness skin grafts.<ref>{{REFjournal | ||
Revision as of 12:39, 24 January 2022
Denuded penis is a surgical disaster caused by poor surgical technique during a circumcision operation resulting in the destruction of all of the skin of the penis.
Case reports
Wilson & Wilson (1959) reported a case in which the denuded penis was covered with scrotal skin.[1]
Van Duyn & Warr (1962) reported a case of excessive skin removal in which a split-thickness skin graft was used to supply the needed skin.[2]
Sotolongo, Jr. et al. (1985) reported three cases of penile denudation after non-therapeutic circumcision that were treated without surgery.[3]
Sinha & Mushtaq (2012) have described one such iatrogenic event which was treated by split thickness and full-thickness skin grafts.[4]
References
- ↑
Wilson CL, Wilson MC. Plastic repair of the denuded penis. South Med J. March 1959; 52(3): 288-90. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 23 January 2022.
Quote:A case of partial amputation and complete denudation of the penis resulted from use of the electrocautery to perform a circumcision is reported.
- ↑ Van Duyn J, Warr WS. Excessive penile skin loss from circumcision. J Med Assoc Ga. August 1962; 51: 394-06. PMID. Retrieved 23 January 2022.
Quote:We believe that these minor excesses of skin loss following circumcision must be more common than indicated by the literature, and that many of them should be split grafted to avoid the possibility of a future scarred and/or shortened penile shaft.
- ↑ Sotolongo, Jr. JR, Hoffman S, Gribetz. Penile denudation injuries after circumcision. J Urol. January 1985; 133(1): 102-3. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 24 January 2022.
- ↑ Sinha, Chandresen K, Mushtaq, Imran. Penile resurfacing for denuded penis following circumcision. Pediatr Surg Int. June 2012; 28(6): 649-51. PMID. DOI. Retrieved 23 January 2022.
Quote:[W]hen it occurs is usually due to the injudicious use of monopolar diathermy, infection and poor surgical technique.
