Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

‘An insight into circumcised men seeking foreskin reconstruction: a prospective cohort study’

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 32, pages 611–616 (2020)Cite this article

Subjects

A Correction to this article was published on 06 February 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

The aim of this study was to present a cohort of men seeking assistance with foreskin reconstruction, with the objective to broaden the general understanding for this specific request. All men between January 2015 and May 2019 seeking assistance with foreskin reconstruction were included. We prospectively collected data on patient demographics and outcomes such as their motivations, treatment trajectory, and experiences. A total of 11 patients were identified and included (age range 20–62). The majority were circumcised during adulthood for medical reasons. Among the most prominent motivations to pursue reconstruction were experiencing impairment of body integrity, feeling mutilated, increasing glans sensitivity and having issues with an imposed cultural or religious identity. Most patients stated that they experienced little support from healthcare professionals and that the Internet was their main source of information. Furthermore, almost all patients practiced penile tissue stretching to reconstruct the foreskin with unregistered devices. Foreskin reconstruction is a scarcely reported topic and is sought out for different reasons. Although rare, these patients experience a heavy burden and will go to great lengths to reconstruct their foreskin, more often so without the involvement of healthcare professions. In contrary to the surgical treatment options, the nonsurgical methods seem promising, but these rely heavily on lay-sources found online.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Change history

  • 06 February 2020

    An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

References

  1. Raveenthiran V. The evolutionary saga of circumcision from a religious perspective. J Pediatr Surg. 2018;53:1440–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. UNAIDS. Male circumcision: global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability. World Health Organization. Geneva: World Health Organization. 42. http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43749/1/9789241596169_eng.pdf. Accessed Aug 2019.

  3. Mussell R. The development of professional guidelines on the law and ethics of male circumcision. J Med Ethics. 2004;30:254–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Collier R. Whole again: the practice of foreskin restoration. CMAJ. 2011;183:2092–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Svoboda JS. Circumcision of male infants as a human rights violation. J Med Ethics. 2013;39:469–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Collier R. Ugly, messy and nasty debate surrounds circumcision. CMAJ. 2012;184:E25–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Jacobs AJ, Arora KS. Ritual male infant circumcision and human rights. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15:30–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hill RV. Altered anatomy demands dedicated terminology: a response to Wallace (2015). Clin Anat 2015;28:960–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wallace WG. An undeniable need for change: the case for redefining human penis types: Intact, circumcised, and uncircumcised (all three forms exist and all are different). Clin Anat. 2015;28:563–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lander MM. The man behind restoration. In: Denniston GC, Hodges FM, Milos MF, editors. Male and Female Circumcision. Boston, MA: Springer; 1999.

  11. Mohl PC, Adams R, Greer DM, Sheley KA. Prepuce restoration seekers: psychiatric aspects. Arch Sex Behav. 1981;10:383–93.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Walter G, Streimer J. Genital self-mutilation: attempted foreskin reconstruction. Br J Psychiatry. 1990;156:125–7.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Money J. Sexology, Body Image, Foreskin Restoration, and Bisexual Status. J Sex Res. 1991;28:145–56. JSTOR

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hammond T. A preliminary poll of men circumcised in infancy or childhood. BJU Int. 1999;83:85–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Maguire P, Parkes CM. Surgery and loss of body parts. BMJ. 1998;316:1086–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Haseebuddin M, Brandes SB. The prepuce: preservation and reconstruction. Curr Opin Urol. 2008;18:575–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Stewart GD, Grutholter J, Donat R. Adult prepuceplasty: comparison of outcomes of standard prepuceplasty and foreskin Z-plasty. Urology. 2012;80:946–50. e941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chi CC, Kirtschig G, Baldo M, Brackenbury F, Lewis F, Wojnarowska F, et al. Topical interventions for genital lichen sclerosus. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;12:CD008240.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Tushnet L. Uncircumcision. Med. 1965;93:588–93.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Penn J. Penile Reform. Br J Plast Surg. 1963;16:287–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Feriz H. A simple method of plastic surgery of the prepuce after radical (ritual) circumcision. Munch Med Wochenschr. 1962;104:1406–7.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Greer DMMP, Mohl PC, Sheley KA. A technique for foreskin reconstruction and some preliminary results. J Sex Res. 1982;18:324–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Goodwin WE. Uncircumcision: a technique for plastic reconstruction of a prepuce after circumcision. J Urol. 1990;144:1203–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Lynch MJ, Pryor JP. Uncircumcision: a one-stage procedure. Br J Urol. 1993;72:257–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Chambers D, Rodgers M, Woolacott N. Not only randomized controlled trials, but also case series should be considered in systematic reviews of rapidly developing technologies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1253. e1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. NOHARMM. National Organization to Halt the Abuse and Route Mutilation of Males. http://www.noharmm.org.

  27. NORM. The National Organization of Restoring Men. http://www.norm.org.

  28. Griffiths RW, Bigelow JD, Loewen J. Foreskin restoration 1980–2008. In: Denniston G, Hodges F, Milos M, editors. Genital autonomy. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010.

  29. Schultheiss D, Truss MC, Stief CG, Jonas U. Uncircumcision: a historical review of preputial restoration. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1998;101:1990–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. PurpuraV, Bondioli E, Cunningham EJ, de Luca G, Capirossi D, Nigrisoli E, et al. The development of a decellularized extracellular matrix-based biomaterial scaffold derived from human foreskin for the purpose of foreskin reconstruction in circumcised males. J Tissue Eng. 2018;9:2041731418812613.

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: M. Özer, Floyd W. Timmermans

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Center, location VUMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    M. Özer & Floyd W. Timmermans

  2. Center of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria, Amsterdam University Medical Center, location VUMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    M. Özer & Floyd W. Timmermans

  3. Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    M. Özer

  4. Amsterdam Movement Sciences Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Floyd W. Timmermans

Authors
  1. M. Özer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Floyd W. Timmermans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Özer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. All authors have seen and agree on the submitted version. We declare that the material is original and has not been published elsewhere.

Ethical statement

This study was exempt from institutional review board approval and was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, guidelines for Good Clinical Practice, and the CONSORT statement. All photographed patients provided explicit written informed consent for use of the photographic material

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Özer, M., Timmermans, F.W. ‘An insight into circumcised men seeking foreskin reconstruction: a prospective cohort study’. Int J Impot Res 32, 611–616 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0223-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-019-0223-y

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links