Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · J Reconstr Microsurg Open 2020; 05(02): e95-e100
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1718717
Original Article

Two-Stage Pediatric Penile Reconstruction after Postcircumcision Gangrene

Tarek Zayid
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Mohamed O. Ouf
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Amr Elbatawy
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Serag M. Zidan
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Abdelnaser Hamdy
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Hany Ismail
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Khallad Sholkamy
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Hazem Dahshan
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt
,
Wael Ayad
1   Department of Plastic Surgery, Al Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background Postcircumcision penile gangrene is a devastating complication that may lead to total or subtotal penile loss requiring penile reconstruction. Pediatric penile reconstruction poses diverse challenges for most plastic surgeon.

Patients and Methods Retrospective cohort study of 12 children ranged from 6 to 36 months old suffered from total or partial penile loss secondary to electrocautery burn during circumcisions. Reconstruction was done by island groin flap for phallus in first stage and urethral reconstruction by tubularized scrotal flap 6 months later. The outcome was evaluated by assessment of flap survival, the esthetic appearance, urethral competence and rate of complication.

Results Follow-up was ranged from 6 to 24 months. A new phallus of satisfactory dimensions was achieved in all cases. Complications included partial necrosis of the flap in two cases, fistulas in two cases, and stenosis of the urethral anastomosis in one case. These complications were successfully resolved by corrective surgery. Good satisfactory result regarded as shape and urination stream.

Conclusion Penile reconstruction can be performed in children with good results and low complication rate. The use of island groin flap for phallus reconstruction followed by urethral reconstruction by tubularized scrotal flap 6 months later was found effective, time saving, and with minor complication.

Keywords

groin flap - penile reconstruction - tubularized scrotal flap - circumcision - penile gangrene


Publication History

Received: 24 June 2020

Accepted: 25 August 2020

Article published online:
22 October 2020

© 2020. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Thieme Medical Publishers
333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

 

  • References

  • 1 Wiswell TE, Tencer HL, Welch CA, Chamberlain JL. Circumcision in children beyond the neonatal period. Pediatrics 1993; 92 (06) 791-793
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Schoen EJ. The status of circumcision of newborns. N Engl J Med 1990; 322 (18) 1308-1312
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Hutcheson JC. Male neonatal circumcision: indications, controversies and complications. Urol Clin North Am 2004; 31 (03) 461-467 , viii
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Krill AJ, Palmer LS, Palmer JS. Complications of circumcision. ScientificWorldJournal 2011; 11: 2458-2468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Uzun G, Ozdemir Y, Eroglu M, Mutluoglu M. Electrocautery-induced gangrene of the glans penis in a child following circumcision. BMJ Case Rep 2012; 2012: x
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Aköz T, Erdoğan B, Görgü M, Kapucu MR, Kargi E. Penile reconstruction in children using a double vascular pedicle composite groin flap. Scand J Urol Nephrol 1998; 32 (03) 225-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Gilbert DA, Jordan GH, Devine Jr. CJJ, Winslow BH, Schlossberg SM. Phallic construction in prepubertal and adolescent boys. J Urol 1993; 149 (06) 1521-1526
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Peters RT, Fisher R. Paediatric circumcision using bipolar diathermy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2009; 91 (05) 436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Sun GC, Huang JJ. One-stage reconstruction of the penis with composite iliac crest and lateral groin skin flap. Ann Plast Surg 1985; 15 (06) 519-528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mukherjee GD. Use of groin and mid-thigh flap in reconstruction of penis with penile and perineal urethra and a dorsal skin-lined socket for a removable prosthesis. Ann Plast Surg 1986; 16 (03) 235-241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Persoff MM. Groin flap phallus reconstruction with new method of urethroplasty. Ann Plast Surg 1981; 6 (02) 132-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Yang M, Zhao M, Li S, Li Y. Penile reconstruction by the free scapular flap and malleable penis prosthesis. Ann Plast Surg 2007; 59 (01) 95-101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kropp B, Cohn JE, Wang W, Sokoya M, Ducic Y. Free tissue transfer penile reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg 2019; 33 (01) 24-29
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Puckett CL, Montie JE. Construction of male genitalia in the transsexual, using a tubed groin flap for the penis and a hydraulic inflation device. Plast Reconstr Surg 1978; 61 (04) 523-530
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Murakami R, Fujii T, Itoh T. et al. Versatility of the thin groin flap. Microsurgery 1996; 17 (01) 41-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Clodius L, Smith PJ, Bruna J, Serafin D. The lymphatics of the groin flap. Ann Plast Surg 1982; 9 (06) 447-458
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Perović S. Phalloplasty in children and adolescents using the extended pedicle island groin flap. J Urol 1995; 154 (2 pt 2): 848-853
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Biemer E. Penile construction by the radial arm flap. Clin Plast Surg 1988; 15 (03) 425-430
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Hayashi Y, Kojima Y, Kurokawa S, Mizuno K, Nakane A, Kohri K. Scrotal dartos flap for the prevention of the urethrocutaneous fistula on hypospadias urethroplasty. Int J Urol 2005; 12 (03) 280-283
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ligang Y, Yongxiong S, Yili T. One stage urethroplasty with midline scrotal flap with vessel pedicle for hypospadias. China J Mod Med 2003; (11) 30
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Carrera A, Gil-Vernet A, Forcada P, Morro R, Llusa M, Arango O. Arteries of the scrotum: a microvascular study and its application to urethral reconstruction with scrotal flaps. BJU Int 2009; 103 (06) 820-824
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Sengezer M, Oztürk S, Deveci M, Odabaşi Z. Long-term follow-up of total penile reconstruction with sensate osteocutaneous free fibula flap in 18 biological male patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2004; 114 (02) 439-450 , discussion 451–452
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Hamill PVV, Drizd TA, Johnson CL, Reed RB, Roche AF, Moore WM. Physical growth: national center for health statistics percentiles. Am J Clin Nutr 1979; 32 (03) 607-629
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Schonfeld WA, Beebe GW. Normal growth and variation in the male genitalia from birth to maturity. J Urol 1942; 48 (06) 759-777
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Treharne RW. Review of Wolff's law and its proposed means of operation. Orthop Rev 1981; 10: 35
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Assaf R, Albahhah T, Ayoub K. et al. Penile reconstruction using scrotal flap after usage of monopolar electrocautery in a 2-month-old Syrian child: a case report. J Surg Case Rep 2019; 2019 (12) rjz351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar