Advertisement

Der Urologe, Ausgabe A

, Volume 42, Issue 8, pp 1035–1038 | Cite as

Fehler und Gefahren bei ambulanten Operationen: Zirkumzision

  • E. Stark
  • J. Steffens
Article

Zusammenfassung

Die Zirkumzision als eine der am häufigsten ambulant durchgeführten Operationen birgt neben den typischen auch seltene operative Komplikationen, die mitunter fatale Folgen haben können. Besonders zu berücksichtigen sind vor allem die rechtlichen Aspekte des operativen Eingriffs, die Anforderungen, die an die Indikationsstellung und die präoperative Aufklärung ebenso wie an die postoperative Überwachung und Nachsorge gestellt werden.

Die unterschiedlichen Häufigkeiten der durchgeführten Zirkumzisionen in einzelnen europäischen Ländern zeigen, wie verschieden die Operationsindikationen gestellt werden. Es liegt die Vermutung nahe, dass viele Operationen und damit auch viele Komplikationen vermeidbar sind.

Schlüsselwörter

Zirkumzision Komplikationen Beherrschung 

Abstract

As one of the most frequently performed operations circumcisions can entail not only typical but also rare complications with possibly fatal consequences. The following areas are of particular importance: legal aspects of the operation, indication for an operation, pre-operative information, post-operative surveillance and after-care.

The amount of circumcisions carried out in different European countries vary widely. This shows a difference in indication assessment, which may suppose that a number of operations are not necessary.

Keywords

Circumcision Complications Management 

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Alter GJ, Horton CE, Horton CE jr (1994) Buried penis as a contraindication for circumcision. J Am Coll Surg 178:636Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson GF (1989) Circumcision. Pediatr. Ann 18:205, 209–210, 212–213Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Annunziato D, Goldblum LM (1978) Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome. A complication of circumcision. Am. J. Dis. Child 132:1187–1188Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ashfield JE, Nickel KR, Siemens DR, MacNeily AE, Nickel JC (2003) Treatment of phimosis with topical steroids in 194 children. J Urol. 169:1106–1108Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Atikeler MK, Onur R, Gecit I, Senol FA, Cobanoglu B (2001) Increased morbidity after circumcision from a hidden complication. BJU Int 88:938–940CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brisson PA, Patel HI, Feins NR (2002) Revision of circumcision in children: Report of 56 cases. J. Pediatr. Surg. 37:1343–1346Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Baskin LS, Canning DA, Snyder HM 3rd, Duckett JW Jr (1997) Surgical repair of urethral circumcision injuries. J Urol 158:2269–2271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Christakis DA, Harvey E, Zerr DM, Feudtner C, Wright JA, Connell FA (2000) A trade-off analysisi of routine newborn circumcision. Pediatrics 105:246–249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Coban YK (2003) Subglanular stricture: rare penile anomaly resulting from circumcision. Ann. Plast. Surg. 50:198–200Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Deutsche Gesellschaft für Urologie (1998) Leitlinie zur Phimose. Urologe A 6:664Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dewan PA, Tieu HC, Chieng BS (1996) Phimosis: is circumcision necessary? J. Paediatr. Child Health 32:285–289Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dewan PA (2003) Treating phimosis. Med J Austr 178:148–150Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Elmore JM, Baker LA, Snodgrass WT (2002) Topical steroid therapy as an alternative to circumcision for phimosis in boys younger than 3 years. J. Urol. 168:1747Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gairdner, D (1949) The fate of the foreskin. Brit. Med. J. 2:1433–1437Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gurunluoglu R, Bayramicli M, Dogan T, Numanoglu A (1999) Keloid after circumcision. Plast. Reconstr. Surg. 103:1539–1540Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Iken A, Ben Mouelli S, Fontaine E, Quennville V, Thomas L, Beurto D (2002) Treatment of phimosis with locally applied 0,05% clobetasol propionate. Prospective study with 108 children. Prog. Urol. 12:1268–1271Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Naimer SA, Cohen A, Vardy D (2002) Pyogenic granuloma of the penile shaft following circumcision. Pediatr. Dermatol 19:39–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oster J (1968) Further fate of the foreskin. Arch. Dis. Childh. 43:200–203Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rickwood AMK, Kenny SE, Donnell SC (2000) Towards evidence based circumcision of English boys: Survey of trends in practice. Brit. Med. J.321:792–793Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Siegel-Itzkovich J (2000) Baby´s penis reattached after botched circumcision. BMJ 321:529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stehr M, Schuster T, Dietz HG, Joppich I (2001) Circumcision-critism of the routine. Klin Pädiatr. 213:50–55Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stefan H (1994) Reconstruction of the penis after necrosis due to circumcision burn. Eur. J. Pediatr. Surg. 4:40–43Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tasic V, Polenakovic M (2000) Acute poststreptococcal glomerulonephritis following circumcision. Pediatr. Nephrol 15:274–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Upadhyay V, Hammodat HM, Pease PW (1998) Post circumcision meatal stenosis: A 12 years´ experience. N Z Med. J. 111:57–58Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Urol. Abt.St. Antonius-Hospital Eschweiler
  2. 2.Klinik für Urologie und KinderurologieSt. Antonius-HospitalEschweiler

Personalised recommendations