Advertisement

Macroposthia

  • Mohamed A. Baky Fahmy
Chapter
  • 239 Downloads

Abstract

Redundant long prepuce parse is not a disease by itself and may be considered as a normal variation of penile development, this condition may be confused with another rare congenital anomaly called congenital megaprepuce; which is characterized by extensive redundancy of the inner preputial skin over a normal penile shaft and glans, and presented as an enormously capacious preputial sac, engulfing the whole penis or upper scrotum, with urine accumulation, prompting the term “preputial bladder”. Patients suffering from redundant prepuce often elected as an indiction for male circumcision in many countries; as difficulty in foreskin retraction and phimosis associating long prepuce are considered by some as a potential risk factors for penile carcinoma that may be related to the anatomically longer length of the foreskin. A wide range of confusion exist among authors between normal long prepuce and patients with akroposthia from one side, and between congenital megaprepuce and buried or concealed penis on the other side. We will discuss the two conditions separately; the congenitally variant long prepuce “akroposthia” and the rare congenital megaprepuce.

Keywords

Akroposthia Acroposthion Volcano penis Lipodermos Preputial bladder Megaprepuce 

Abbreviations

CMP

Congenital megaprepuce

CP/CPPS

Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome

IMC

Infant male circumcision

MIP

Megameatus Intact prepuce

PE

Premature ejaculation

References

  1. 1.
    Cuckow PM, Rix G, Mouriquand PDE. Preputial plasty: a good alternative to circumcision. J Pediatr. 1994;29:561–3.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hodges FM. The history of phimosis from antiquity to the present. In: Denniston GC, Hodges FM, Milos MF, editors. Male and female circumcision: medical, legal, and ethical considerations in pediatric practice. New York: Kluwer/Plenum; 1999. p. 37–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    McGrath K. Variations in penile anatomy and their contribution to medical mischief. In: Denniston GC, Hodges FM, Milos MF, editors. Circumcision and human rights. Dordrecht: Springer; 2009.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9167-4_8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dickinson RL. Human sex anatomy: a topographical hand atlas. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins; 1949.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kühn DCG, editor. Galenis de usu partium corporis humani, 11.13. Medicorum græcorum, vol. 3. Leipzig: Cnobloch; 1822, p. 898.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Velazquez EF, Bock A, Soskin A, et al. Preputial variability and preferential association of long phimotic foreskins with penile cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27(7):994–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gallo L. The prevalence of an excessive prepuce and the effects of distal circumcision on premature ejaculation. Arab J Urol. 2017;15:140–7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2017.02.002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zhao YY, Xu DL, Zhao FJ, et al. Redundant prepuce increases the odds of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS). Asian J Androl. 2014;16(5):774–7.  https://doi.org/10.4103/1008-682X.131706.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Huang C, Song P, Xu C, Wang R, Wei L, Zhao X. Comparative efficacy and safety of different circumcisions for patients with redundant prepuce or phimosis: a network meta-analysis. Int J Surg. 2017;43:17–25.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2017.04.060. Epub 2017 May 15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fahmy MAB. The spectrum of genital median raphe anomalies among infants undergoing ritual circumcision. J Pediatr Urol. 2013. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S147751311200294X#FCANote.
  11. 11.
    O’Brien A, AMJ S, Frank JD. Phimosis or congenital megaprepuce. Br J Urol. 1994;73:719–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Werner Z, Hajiran A, Al-Omar O. Congenital megaprepuce: literature review and surgical correction. Case Rep Urol. 2019;2019:1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/4584609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Brien M. In: Losty PD, et al., editors. Rickham’s neonatal surgery. London: Springer; 2018. p. 1227.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-4721-3_69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Liu X, He D-W, Hua Y, Zhang D-Y, Wei G-H. Congenital completely buried penis in boys: anatomical basis and surgical technique. BJU Int. 2013;112(2):271–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Summerton DJ, McNally J, Denny AJ, Malone PS. Congenital megaprepuce: an emerging condition–how to recognize and treat it. BJU Int. 2000;86(4):519–22.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1464-410X.2000.00509.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohamed A. Baky Fahmy
    • 1
  1. 1.Pediatric SurgeryAl Azher UniversityCairoEgypt

Personalised recommendations