» Articles » PMID: 24490087

Buried Penis: Evaluation of Outcomes in Children and Adults, Modification of a Unified Treatment Algorithm, and Review of the Literature

Overview
Journal ISRN Urol
Specialty Urology
Date 2014 Feb 4
PMID 24490087
Citations 8
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction. Buried penis is a difficult condition to manage in children and adults and conveys significant physical and psychological morbidity. Surgery is often declined due to morbid obesity, forcing patients to live in disharmony for years until the desired weight reduction is achieved. No single operative technique fits all. We present our experience and surgical approach resulting in an improved algorithm unifying the treatment of adults and children. Methods. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients treated for buried penis between 2011 and 2012. All patients underwent penile degloving and basal anchoring. Penile shaft coverage was achieved with skin grafts. Suprapubic lipectomies were performed on adult patients. Results. Nine patients were identified: four children and five obese adults. Average postoperative stay was three days for children and five for adults. Three adults were readmitted with superficial wound problems. One child had minor skin breakdown. All patients were pleased with their outcomes. Conclusion. Buried penis is a complex condition, and treatment should be offered by services able to deal with all aspects of reconstruction. Obesity in itself should not delay surgical intervention. Local and regional awareness is essential to manage expectations in these challenging patients aspiring to both aesthetic and functional outcomes.

Citing Articles

Buried Penis: A Rare Cause of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in the Pediatric Population.

Caldas M, Pedro M, Magalhaes T, Viegas M, Bicho A Cureus. 2023; 15(7):e42381.

PMID: 37621807 PMC: 10445770. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42381.


Two levels vs. one level of phallopexy in the treatment of concealed penis in patients in pediatric age group.

Elrouby A, Saad I, Kotb M Front Pediatr. 2023; 10:1001825.

PMID: 36741097 PMC: 9895086. DOI: 10.3389/fped.2022.1001825.


The Characteristics and Distribution of Nerve Plexuses in the Dartos Fascia From Concealed Penis Children.

Huang W, Tang D, Gu W Front Pediatr. 2021; 9:705155.

PMID: 34422727 PMC: 8374239. DOI: 10.3389/fped.2021.705155.


Adult Acquired Buried Penis: A Hidden Problem in Obese Men.

Cohen P Cureus. 2021; 13(2):e13067.

PMID: 33680609 PMC: 7932830. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.13067.


Congenital Megaprepuce: Literature Review and Surgical Correction.

Werner Z, Hajiran A, Al-Omar O Case Rep Urol. 2019; 2019:4584609.

PMID: 31218089 PMC: 6536951. DOI: 10.1155/2019/4584609.


References
1.
Salgado C, Chim H, Tang J, Monstrey S, Mardini S . Penile reconstruction. Semin Plast Surg. 2012; 25(3):221-8. PMC: 3312184. DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1281492. View

2.
Black P, Friedrich J, Engrav L, Wessells H . Meshed unexpanded split-thickness skin grafting for reconstruction of penile skin loss. J Urol. 2004; 172(3):976-9. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000133972.65501.44. View

3.
Senchenkov A, Knoetgen J, Chrouser K, Nehra A . Application of vacuum-assisted closure dressing in penile skin graft reconstruction. Urology. 2006; 67(2):416-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.08.037. View

4.
Crawford B . Buried penis. Br J Plast Surg. 1977; 30(1):96-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0007-1226(77)90046-7. View

5.
Gillett M, Rathbun S, Husmann D, Clay R, Kramer S . Split-thickness skin graft for the management of concealed penis. J Urol. 2005; 173(2):579-82. DOI: 10.1097/01.ju.0000149606.27158.fa. View