International Urology and Nephrology

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 159–166 | Cite as

Circumcision with the plastibell device a long-term follow-up

  • S. M. Sörensen
  • M. R. Sörensen


Indications for operation, immediate postoperative morbidity and complications were recorded in 43 patients circumcised with the Plastibell device. Questionnaires were used in recording late postoperative morbidity and complications during the mean observation period of 29 months, and were followed by a clinical and cosmetic assessment. No serious complications were encountered. Compared to classical dissection techniques, dysuria is a prominent feature using the Plastibell device. The Plastibell method leaves a varying amount of foreskin intact, which could well explain why meatal ulcers/stenosis are not seen when employing this method. In areas with low hygienic standards we cannot recommend the method since the ability of retaining smegma must still be present. Used on medical grounds, the method is preferable, as it leaves some of the foreskin intact and is quick and simple to perform.


Postoperative Morbidity Hypospadia International Urology Dissection Technique Phimosis 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Galatius, H., Söndergaard, J. O.: Circumcision with the Plastibell device.Ugeskr. Laeger., 143, 818 (1981).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holmlund, D.: Circumcision—a surgical intervention with very old tradition (in Swedish).Läkartidningen, 32, 3612 (1972).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ladegaard-Pedersen, H.: Aspects of circumcision (in Swedish).Manedsskr Prakt. Laegegern., July, 285 (1963).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kariher, D. H., Smith, T. W.: Immediate circumcision of the newborn.Obstet. Gynecol., 7, 50 (1956).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blencke, B.: Circumcision mit einem Plastikgerät.Z. Kinderchir., 9, 420 (1970).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fraser, I. A., Allen, M. J., Bagshaw, P. F., Johnstone, M.: A randomized trial to assess childhood circumcision with the Plastibell device compared to a conventional dissection technique.Br. J. Surg., 68, 593 (1981).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Oster, J.: Further fate of the foreskin.Arch. Dis. Childh., 43, 200 (1968).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leitch, I. O. W.: Circumcision—a continuing enigma.Aust. Paediatr. J., 6, 59 (1970).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Patel, H.: The problem of routine circumcision.Can. Med. Assoc. J., 95, 576 (1966).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holmlund, D.: Dorsal incision of the prepuce and skin closure with dexon in patients with phimosis.Scand. J. Urol. Nephrol., 7, 97 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. M. Sörensen
    • 1
  • M. R. Sörensen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SurgeryHolstebro HospitalHolstebroDenmark

Personalised recommendations