Advertisement

European Journal of Pediatrics

, Volume 178, Issue 1, pp 77–80 | Cite as

Are mechanical and chemical trauma the reason of meatal stenosis after newborn circumcision?

  • Mehmet Ali Özen
  • Gökhan Gündoğdu
  • Mehmet Taşdemir
  • Egemen EroğluEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Mechanical and chemical trauma are a widely accepted theories to explain the pathogenesis of meatalstenosis after newborn circumcision. The aim of the present study was to explore the theory that an exposed glans is prone to meatal stenosis. This was done by a novel investigation of boys who were born with “hooded prepuce”, a condition in which the glans is completely exposed. Physical examination, lower urinary tract symptoms, urethral meatus configuration, and surgical procedures of 18 children admitted for routine circumcision, who had congenital hooded prepuce with normally located urethral meatus, were analyzed. The study period was 2013 and 2018. All the cases have been seen because of neonatal circumcision request, but was postponed due to hooded prepuce. The only presenting complaint in children was a cosmetically unattractive appearance. There were no symptoms associated with meatal stenosis, they circumcised in an average of 6 years and non of them required any additional procedure.

Conclusion: Meatal stenosis did not occur in cases whose glans penis are naked with hooded prepuce. These findings do not support the default chemical and mechanical trauma theories. Hooded prepuce without any penile anomalies is only a cosmetically unattractive appearance and circumcision can correct this.

What is known:

The common theory of meatal stenosis etiology is that the meatus undergoes irritation with chemical/mechanical trauma in the absence of a prepuce after newborn circumcision.

Circumcision is usually postponed in newborns with hooded prepuce.

What is new:

We did not notice meatal stenosis in cases whose urethral meatus were not covered with a prepuce congenitally. Ammoniacal dermatitis or mechanical trauma theories may not explain the cause of meatal stenosis.

Hooded prepuce is not a handicap to newborn circumcision. It is just a cosmetic problem and circumcision can solve it.

Keywords

Circumcision Diaper Etiology Meatal stenosis Neonatal 

Abbreviations

MS

Meatal stenosis

Notes

Authors’ contributions

Özen MA and Eroğlu E had primary responsibility for subjects screening, enrollment, follow-up, and manuscript preparation. Gündoğdu G and Taşdemir M were involved in the literature search and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version of the manuscript. Egemen E is the guarantor.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study and their parents (or legal guardians). All procedures performed involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the local ethics committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

References

  1. 1.
    Bazmamoun H, Ghorbanpour M, Mousavi-Bahar SH (2008) Lubrication of circumcision site for prevention of meatal stenosis in children younger than 2 years old. Urol J 5:233–236Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cold CJ, Taylor JR (1999) The prepuce. BJU Int 83:34–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cubillos J, George A, Gitlin J, Palmer LS (2012) Tailored sutureless meatoplasty: a new technique for correcting meatal stenosis. J Pediatr Urol 8(1):92–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2010.10.0002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davenport M (1996) ABC of general surgery in children. Problems with the penis and prepuce. BMJ 312(7026):299–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dobanovacki D, Lucić Prostran B, Sarac D, Antić J, Petković M, Lakić T (2012) Prepuce in boys and adolescents: what when, and how? Med Pregl 65(7–8):295–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eroglu E, Gundogdu G (2015) Isolated penile torsion in newborns. Can Urol Assoc J 9(11–12):E805–E807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Eroğlu E, Oktar T (2010) Mythological evaluation of the circumcision ritual. Androl Bull 40:1–3Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eroglu E, Dayanıklı P, Şarman G, Yörükalp OE, Özkan HC (2005) Newborn circumcision using a Gomco clamp. J Turk Assoc Pediatr Surg 19:31–34Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Godley SP, Sturm RM, Durbin-Johnson B, Eric A, Kurzrock EA (2015) Meatal stenosis: a retrospective analysis of over 4000 patients. J Pediatr Urol 11(1):38.e1–38.e6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2014.09.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Huntley JS, Bourne MC, Munro FD, Wilson-Storey D (2003) Troubles with the foreskin: one hundred consecutive referrals to paediatric surgeons. J R Soc Med 96(9):449–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kayaba H, Tamura H, Kitajima S, Fujiwara Y, Kato T (1996) Analysis of shape and retractability of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys. J Urol 156(5):1813–1815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Morris BJ, Krieger JN (2017) Does circumcision increase meatal stenosis risk? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Urology 110:16–26.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2017.07.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morris BJ, Krieger JN (2018) Reply by the authors. Urology 118:245–246.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2018.03.029 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mousavi SA, Mohammadjafari H (2009) Circumcision with the plastibell device in hooded prepuce or glanular hypospadias. Adv Urol 2009:864816–864814.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2009/864816 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Noe HN, Dale GA (1975) Evaluation of children with meatal stenosis. J Urol 114:455–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Özen MA, Gündoğdu G, Taşdemir M, Eroğlu E (2017) Complication of newborn circumcision: meatal stenosis or meatal web? J Pediatr Urol 13(6):617.e1–617.e4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2017.05.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Persad R, Sharma S, McTavish J, Imber C, Mouriquand PD (1995) Clinical presentation and pathophysiology of meatal stenosis following circumcision. Br J Urol 75:91–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pieretti RV, Goldstein AM, Pieretti-Vanmarcke R (2010) Late complications of newborn circumcision: a common and avoidable problem. Pediatr Surg Int 26(5):515–518.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-010-2566-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Salimi A, Besharati M, Rashidi Nia S, Shahmoradi S, Eftekhari SS (2017) Application of the topical hydrocortisone ointment decreases post-circumcision meatal stenosis in neonates: a cross-sectional study. Int J Pediatr 5(6):5061–5067Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shenoy SP, Marla PK, Sharma P, Bhat N, Rao AR (2015) Frenulum sparing circumcision: step-by-step approach of a novel technique. J Clin Diagn Res 9(12):01–03.  https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/14972.6860 Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sorokan ST, Finlay JC, Jeffries AL (2015) Newborn male circumcision. Position Statement Canadian Paediatric Society. Paediatr Child Health 20:311–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Upadhyay V, Hammodat HM, Pease PW (1998) Post circumcision meatal stenosis: 12 years’ experience. N Z Med J 111:57–58Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mehmet Ali Özen
    • 1
  • Gökhan Gündoğdu
    • 1
  • Mehmet Taşdemir
    • 2
  • Egemen Eroğlu
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Pediatric Surgery, School of MedicineKoç University HospitalIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Pediatric NephrologyKoç University HospitalIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations