Table 1 Preputioplasty studies.
From: Preputioplasty as a surgical alternative in treatment of phimosis
Author | Year | Study design | Follow-up | Complication | N | Type of reconstruction | Success rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Benson et al., Journal of Pediatric Urology [17] | 2018 | Retrospective | 6 Months | Scarring in 1/28 patients (pat.) | 28 | Z-plasty | 98% |
Pedersini et al., Journal of Pediatric Urology [15] | 2017 | Prospective | 12 Months | Scarring in 1/41 pat. | 41 | “Trident” preputial plasty | 97.6% |
Stewart et al., Urology [19] | 2012 | Retrospective | 26 Months | a. Standard preputioplasty: scarring in 5/22 pat. b. Z-Plasty scarring in 1/12 pat. | 22 vs. 12 | Standard vs. Z-plasty | 82% |
Monarca et al., Gironale di Chirurgia [20] | 2013 | Retrospective | 6 Months | No pathological scarring | 52 | Simple running suture | 92% |
Nieuwenhuijs et al., Journal of Pediatric Urology [14] | 2007 | Retrospective | 6 Months | Scarring in 2/47 pat | 47 vs. 18 | Y-V plasty vs. transverse closure of longitudinal incisions of the narrow preputial ring. | 95.7% vs. 89% |
Cuckow et al., Journal of Pediatric Surgery [12] | 1994 | Retrospective | N/A | Scarring in 2/50 pat. | 50 vs. 50 | Circumcision vs. limited dorsal slit | N/A |
Alexander et al., Journal of Pediatric Surgery [13] | 2010 | Retrospective | 6 Months | None | 10 | Ventral V-plasty | N/A |
Erdenetsetseg et al., Journal of Urology [21] | 2003 | Retrospective | 12 Months | Skin fistula in 3/51 pat. | 51 | N/A | 70.6% |
Nils Wåhlin, Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology [11] | 1992 | Retrospective | 6 Months | N/A | 63 | Triple incision plasty | N/A |
