Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Megaprepuce: a systematic review of a rare condition with a controversial surgical management

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Surgery International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Megaprepuce (MP) is a rare and challenging condition characterised by an excessive inner prepuce, paucity of penile skin and an extremely narrow phimotic ring. The aetiological factors leading to its development are poorly understood. A variety of surgical techniques have been described in the last 26 years mostly with small number of patients and short follow-up. It is also highly likely that some series have in the past included different variants of inconspicuous penis combining concealed penis, MP and webbed penis. This article is a systematic review of the literature on Megaprepuce; in particular the embryology, history, aetiology, and the surgical techniques available for the correction of this unique penile anomaly will be presented and discussed in this study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hirsch K, Schwaiger B, Kraske S, Wullich B (2019) Megaprepuce: presentation of a modified surgical technique with excellent cosmetic and functional results. J Pediatr Urol 15(4):401-e1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alexander A, Lorenzo AJ, Salle JLP, Rode H (2010) The Ventral V-plasty: a simple procedure for the reconstruction of a congenital megaprepuce. J Pediatr Surg 45:1741–1747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Rod J, Desmonts A, Petit T, Ravasse P (2013) Congenital megaprepuce: A 12-year experience (52 cases) of this specific form of buried penis. J Pediatr Urol 9:784–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. O’Brien A, Shapiro AMJ, Frank JD (1994) Case report Phimosis or congenital megaprepuce? Br J Urol 73:719–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Smeulders N, Wilcox DT, Cuckow PM (2000) The buried penis—an anatomical approach. Br J Urol Int 86:523–526

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Sadler TW (1990) Langman’s Medical Embryology. Chapt 15, 6th edn. William and Wilkins, New York, pp 283–286

    Google Scholar 

  7. Powis MR, Capps S (1998) Preputial intussusception or acquired megaprepuce. Paediatr Surg Int 13:158–159

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Gwinn JL, Lee FA (1974) Radiological case of the month. Am J Dis Child 128:835–836

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bolukbasi A (1995) Correspondence phimosis or congenital megaprepuce? Br J Urol 76:145

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Summerton DJ, McNally J, Denny AJ, Malone PSJ (2000) Congenital megaprepuce: an emerging condition—how to recognise and treat it. Br J Urol Int 86:519–522

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Callewaert PRH, Rahnama’I MS, Guimarães MNC, Vrijens DMJ, Van Kerrebroeck PEVA (2014) DOuble LOngitudinal Megapreputium Incision TEchnique: The dolomite. Urology 83(5):1149–1154

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Podestá ML, Podestá M Jr (2018) Megaprepuce reconstruction: a single center experience. Front Pediatr 6:64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Joseph VT (1995) A new approach to the surgical correction of buried penis. J Pediatr Surg 30(5):727–729

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Leao JQ, Freitas Filho LG, Gomes AL, Heinsich AC, Carnevale J (2008) Congenital megaprepuce: a new alternative technique for surgical correction. Int Braz J Urol 34(3):313–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Betancor CL, Cherian A, Smeulders N, Mushtaq I, Cuckow P (2019) Mid-to long-term outcomes of the ‘anatomical approach’ to congenital megaprepuce repair. J Pediatr Urol 15(3):243 e1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Donahoe PK, Keating MA (1986) Preputial unfurling to correct the buried penis. J Pediatr Surg 21(12):1055–1057

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Shenoy MU, Rance CH (1999) Surgical correction of congenital megaprepuce. Pediatr Surg Int 15(8):593–594

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ruiz E, Vagni R, Apostolo C, Moldes J, Rodríguez H, Ormaechea M, Giuseppucci C, de Badiola F, Bortagaray J, Perea C (2011) Simplified surgical approach to congenital megaprepuce: fixing, unfurling and tailoring revisited. J Urol 185:2487–2490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Murakami H, Yazaki Y, Seo S, Ochi T, Okawada M, Doi T, Miyano G, Koga H, Lane GJ, Ochiai T, Yamataka A (2015) A single surgeon’s experience of 65 cases of penoplasty for congenital megaprepuce, with special reference to mid to long-term follow-up. Pediatr Surg Int 31(1):89–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Buluggiu A, Panait N, Anastasescu R, Merrot T, Alessandrini P (2013) Congenital megaprepuce: surgical approach. Urology 81(3):649–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lin H-W, Zhang L, Geng H-Q, Fang X-L, Xu G-F, Xu M-S, Cai W (2015) An arc incision surgical approach in congenital megaprepuce. Chin Med J 128(4):555–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Mr A Pendred, Medical Illustrations Children’s Health Ireland at Crumlin, for providing all the illustrations.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Paediatric Surgery, Bristol Royal Hospital for Children, Bristol, BS2 8BJ, UK

    Mohamed Shalaby

  2. University College Dublin, Children’s Health Ireland at Temple Street, Dublin, Ireland

    Salvatore Cascio

Authors
  1. Mohamed Shalaby
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Salvatore Cascio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohamed Shalaby.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

No REC (Research Ethics Committee) approval was required for this review article.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all patients whose images were used in this manuscript.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shalaby, M., Cascio, S. Megaprepuce: a systematic review of a rare condition with a controversial surgical management. Pediatr Surg Int 37, 815–825 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-021-04883-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-021-04883-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation