Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

A review on the history of and treatment options for foreskin reconstruction after circumcision


Circumcision is arguably one of the most performed procedures in the world and transcends cultures, nationalities, and religions. New insights into the motivations of men seeking circumcision reversal was the incentive to further investigate known reconstructive therapies. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to present an overview of the historical context and treatment options known for foreskin reconstruction. This review was written after a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, MEDLINE, SCHOLAR databases, and additional Google searches. The practice of foreskin manipulation and the undoing of penile circumcision has a long and turbulent history going back to antiquity. Nowadays, the available data on treatment options remains sparse, focusing primarily on surgical techniques and is generally poorly documented. Nonsurgical methods of reconstruction are rarely mentioned in literature. Nonetheless, nonsurgical methods, such as manual stretching and device-assisted tissue expansion, are commonplace among those who pursue foreskin reconstruction. Although the nonsurgical methods have yielded good results with minimal adverse effects, no proper medical research has been performed to quantify these outcomes. Future studies should also be performed to assess the impact that foreskin reconstruction has on quality of life in this population.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: A PRISMA flow chart on the literature search.
Fig. 2: A presentation of the two historical approaches to cover the glans.
Fig. 3: Second procedure proposed by Celsus.
Fig. 4: Procedure by Goodwin, a modification of a method previously described by Feniz.
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Data availability

Pubmed Search: ((“Foreskin”[Mesh] OR foreskin*[tiab] OR prepuce*[tiab] OR praeputium[tiab] OR preputium[tiab] OR praeputial[tiab] OR preputial[tiab]) AND (“Reconstructive Surgical Procedures”[Mesh] OR reconstruct*[tiab] OR restor*[tiab] OR rehab*[tiab] OR repair*[tiab])) AND (“Circumcision, Male”[Mesh] OR circumcis*[tiab] OR uncircumcis*[tiab] OR post-circumcision[tiab]OR decircumcision[tiab] OR uncircumcision[tiab]). Embase/Medline Search: Circumcision AND Decircumcision OR Foreskin OR Foreskin Restoration OR Reconstruction OR Restoration AND Uncircumcision.


  1. 1.

    UNAIDS. Male circumcision: global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability. UNAIDS; WHO; 2019. p. 42.

  2. 2.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Cox G, Krieger JN, Morris BJ. Histological correlates of penile sexual sensation: does circumcision make a difference? Sex Med. 2015;3:76–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Nayyar C, Chander R, Gupta P, Sherwal B. Co-infection of human immunodeficiency virus and sexually transmitted infections in circumcised and uncircumcised cases in India. Indian J Sexually Transmitted Dis. 2014;35:114–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Gebremedhin S. Assessment of the protective effect of male circumcision from HIV infection and sexually transmitted diseases: evidence from 18 demographic and health surveys in Sub-Saharan Africa. East Afr J public health. 2010;7:295–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Morris BJ, Moreton S, Krieger JN. Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med. 2019;12:263–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Ozer M, Timmermans F. An insight into circumcised men seeking foreskin reconstruction: a prospective cohort study. Int J Impot Res. 2020;32:641.

  8. 8.

    Moher DLA, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG,The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Hodges F. The ideal prepuce in ancient Greece and Rome: male genital aesthetics and their relation to lipodermos, circumcision, foreskin restoration, and the kynodesme. Bull Hist Med. 2001;75:375–405.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Isaacs D. Circumcision. J Paediatrics Child Health. 2011;47:1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Tushnet L. Uncircumcisio. Med. Times. 1965;93:588–93.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

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

  13. 13.

    Brandes S, McAninch J. Surgical methods of restoring the prepuce: a critical review. BJU Int. 1999;1999:109–113.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Futaba K, Bowley D. The foreskin: problems and pathology. Surgery (Oxford). 2010;28:387–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Lascaratos J, Kostakopoulos A, Liapi E, Lascaratos G. Unknown methods of uncircumcision according to Oribasius (4th century AD). Urology. 2003;2003:62.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Werblowsky R. The Oxford dictionary of the Jewish religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997.

  17. 17.

    Rubin J. Celsus’ decircumcision operation: medical and historical implications. Urology. 1980;16:121–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Gilman S. Decircumcision: the first aesthetic surgery. Mod Jud. 1997;17:201–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

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

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Greer D. Technique for foreskin reconstruction and some preliminary results. J Sex Res. 1982;18:324–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    McAninch J. Reconstruction of extensive urethral strictures: circular fasciocutaneous penile flap. J Urol. 1993;149:488–91.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Foregen. Foregen: promoting genital integrity through regenerative medicine. 2017.

  27. 27.

    Purpura V, Bondioli E, Cunningham EJ, de Luca G, Capirossi DEN. 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;9:1–11.

  28. 28.

    MOHARMM. NOHARMM—National Organization to halt the abuse and route mutilation of males. 2020.

  29. 29.

    Griffiths. Restoration devices. NORM. 2017.

  30. 30.

    Bigelow J. The joy of uncircumcising! Hourglass Book Pub; 1994.

  31. 31.

    Foreskin Restoration. A recourse for techniques, advice and information about non-surgical foreskin restoration. In: Restoration. FgbF; 2020.

  32. 32.

    Restoring with T-Tape—a graphic guide. 2020.

  33. 33.

    Foreskinrestorationinfo. 2020.

  34. 34.

    How To Tug. 2020.

  35. 35.

    The DILE Insert Foreskin Restoration System. 2020.

  36. 36.

    DTR. 2020.

  37. 37.

    Foreskin Restoration—CAT II Q Device—regrow penile foreskin for better male sexual health. 2020.

  38. 38. Images of TCL-tugger: by courtesy of Ron Low to use these images for non-commercial purposes. 2017.

  39. 39.

    Wallace W. An undeniable need for recognition: What do you call a man who has undergone foreskin restoration? “Uncircumcised”? “Restored”? How about just BRAVE? A response to Hill. Clin Anat. 2015;28:962–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    McLeod D, Alpert S. Double-V scrotoplasty for repair of congenital penoscrotal webbing: a hidden scar technique. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10:810–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information




FWT: methodology, investigation, writing—original draft; SEM: writing—review and editing, visualization; SCZPT: writing—review and editing, visualization; M-BB: writing—review and editing; MÖ: conceptualization, investigation, supervision, and project administration.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Müjde Özer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

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

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Timmermans, F.W., Mokken, S.E., Poor Toulabi, S.C.Z. et al. A review on the history of and treatment options for foreskin reconstruction after circumcision. Int J Impot Res (2021).

Download citation


Quick links