A review on the history of and treatment options for foreskin reconstruction after circumcision (2024)

Table of Contents
Abstract Access options Additional access options: Similar content being viewed by others Prescribing semaglutide for weight loss in non-diabetic, obese patients is associated with an increased risk of erectile dysfunction: a TriNetX database study Cellular and molecular mechanisms of skin wound healing Carpal tunnel syndrome Data availability References Author information Authors and Affiliations Contributions Corresponding author Ethics declarations Conflict of interest Additional information Rights and permissions About this article Cite this article This article is cited by The ethics of child genital cutting. When does a violation occur? Comments on “Defending an inclusive right to genital and bodily integrity for children” by Dr. Kate Goldie Townsend Comment: Foreskin restorers: insights into motivations, successes, challenges and experiences with medical and mental health professionals

Abstract

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.

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

Access options

Access through your institution

Change institution

Buy or subscribe

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 8 print issues and online access

$259.00 per year

only $32.38 per issue

Learn more

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF

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

A review on the historyof and treatment options for foreskin reconstruction after circumcision (1)
A review on the historyof and treatment options for foreskin reconstruction after circumcision (2)
A review on the historyof and treatment options for foreskin reconstruction after circumcision (3)
A review on the historyof and treatment options for foreskin reconstruction after circumcision (4)
A review on the historyof and treatment options for foreskin reconstruction after circumcision (5)
A review on the historyof and treatment options for foreskin reconstruction after circumcision (6)

Similar content being viewed by others

A review on the historyof and treatment options for foreskin reconstruction after circumcision (8)

Cellular and molecular mechanisms of skin wound healing

Article 25 March 2024

A review on the historyof and treatment options for foreskin reconstruction after circumcision (9)

Carpal tunnel syndrome

Article 23 May 2024

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.

References

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

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

    Article Google Scholar

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

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

    Article Google Scholar

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

    CAS PubMed Google Scholar

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

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

    Google Scholar

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

    Article Google Scholar

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

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

    Article CAS Google Scholar

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

    See Also
    Pros and Cons of Circumcision

    Article Google Scholar

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

    CAS PubMed Google Scholar

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

    Article CAS Google Scholar

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

    Article Google Scholar

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

    Article CAS Google Scholar

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

    Article Google Scholar

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

    Article CAS Google Scholar

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

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

  29. Griffiths. Restoration devices. NORM. 2017.

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

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

  32. Restoring with T-Tape—a graphic guide. 2020. RestoringForeskin.org.

  33. Foreskinrestorationinfo. 2020. Foreskinrestoration.info.PUD.

  34. How To Tug. 2020. TLCTugger.com.

  35. The DILE Insert Foreskin Restoration System. 2020. Dileinsert.com.

  36. DTR. 2020. Foreskinrestore.com.

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

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

  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. 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

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Floyd Wilhelmus Timmermans,Sterre Elisabeth Mokken,Sahaand Cris Zoë Poor Toulabi,Mark-Bram Bouman&Müjde Özer

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

    Floyd Wilhelmus Timmermans,Sterre Elisabeth Mokken,Mark-Bram Bouman&Müjde Özer

  3. Amsterdam Movement Sciences Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VUMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Floyd Wilhelmus Timmermans

  4. Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VUMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Sterre Elisabeth Mokken,Mark-Bram Bouman&Müjde Özer

Authors

  1. Floyd Wilhelmus Timmermans

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMedGoogle Scholar

  2. Sterre Elisabeth Mokken

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMedGoogle Scholar

  3. Sahaand Cris Zoë Poor Toulabi

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMedGoogle Scholar

  4. Mark-Bram Bouman

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMedGoogle Scholar

  5. Müjde Özer

    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMedGoogle Scholar

Contributions

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

About this article

A review on the historyof and treatment options for foreskin reconstruction after circumcision (10)

Cite this article

Timmermans, F.W., Mokken, S.E., Poor Toulabi, S.C.Z. et al. A review on the historyof and treatment options for foreskin reconstruction after circumcision. Int J Impot Res 34, 424–433 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00438-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-021-00438-3

A review on the history of and treatment options for foreskin reconstruction after circumcision (2024)
Top Articles
DailyMed - PROPRANOLOL HYDROCHLORIDE tablet
DAN 5554 10 ROUND ORANGE Pill Images
Read recent and archived obituaries and memorial notices from The Eagle Tribune.
Read recent and archived obituaries and memorial notices from The Eagle Tribune.
Obituaries in Spartanburg, SC | Spartanburg Herald-Journal
Obituaries in Spartanburg, SC | Spartanburg Herald-Journal
[Easy Method] Pokemon Infinite Fusion Speed Up | PIFC
▷ Boosting Pokemon Fusion Speed: Unleashing Infinite Possibilities
Super Euro Autobody 温哥华车身维修厂
Order of the Twin Adder Hunting Log Guide
Latest Posts
myPortal @work - Unify OpenScape Experts Wiki
myPortal@work [doku.rz.hs-fulda.de]
Article information

Author: Geoffrey Lueilwitz

Last Updated:

Views: 6222

Rating: 5 / 5 (80 voted)

Reviews: 87% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Geoffrey Lueilwitz

Birthday: 1997-03-23

Address: 74183 Thomas Course, Port Micheal, OK 55446-1529

Phone: +13408645881558

Job: Global Representative

Hobby: Sailing, Vehicle restoration, Rowing, Ghost hunting, Scrapbooking, Rugby, Board sports

Introduction: My name is Geoffrey Lueilwitz, I am a zealous, encouraging, sparkling, enchanting, graceful, faithful, nice person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.