Skip to main content
Log in

Late complications of circumcision in Iran

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Surgery International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Today, circumcision is the most commonly performed surgical procedure worldwide. Early and late complications may occur due to circumcision. To find the prevalence of late complications of circumcision, we studied 3,205 elementary-school boys aged 6–12 years in 2002. All of them were Iranian and Muslim. Nearly 3,125 of the boys have been circumcised. Most of the boys (2,214 boys) had been circumcised after 2 years of age. Moreover, most of them were operated by traditional circumcisers (43.49%). Late complications (7.39%) were reported in 231 boys. Excessive residual foreskin was seen in 113 children (3.6%). Excessive removal of skin was detected in 42 boys (1.3%), meatal stenosis in 29 boys (0.9%), granoloma in 22 boys (0.7%), penile rotation in 17 boys (0.5%), and 8 boys had secondary chordee (0.2%). The complication rate was not different between the neonatal circumcision and older groups. We suggested that circumcision should only be performed in medical institutions by suitably trained specialists.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig .1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Williams N, Kapila L (1993) Complications of circumcision. Br J Surg 80:1231–1236

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Moses S, Bailey RC, Ronald AR (1998) Male circumcision: assessment of health benefits and risks. Sex Transm Infect 74:368–373

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Warner E, Strashin E (1981). Benefits and risks of circumcision. Can Med Assoc J 125:967–976

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Ozdemir E (1997) Significantly increased complication risks with mass circumcisions. Br J Urol 80:136–139

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Demirseren ME, Gokrem S (2004) Circumcision in unqualified hands: a significant risk of complication. Plast Reconstr Surg 113:1090–1092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ben Chaim J, Livne PM, Binyamini J, Hardak B, Ben Meir D, Mor Y (2005) Complications of circumcision in Israel: a one year multicenter survey. Isr Med Assoc J 7:368–370

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Ahmed A, Mbibi NH, Dawam D, Kalayi GD (1999) Complications of traditional male circumcision. Ann Trop Paediatr 19:113–117

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Sahin F, Beyazova U, Akturk A (2003) Attitudes and practices regarding circumcision in Turkey. Child Care Health Dev 29:275–280

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Akoz T, Erdogan B, Gorgu M, Aslan G, Altintas H (1998) Unusual complications of circumcision. Plast Reconstr Surg 101: 1915–1918

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Leitch IO (1970) Circumcision. A continuing enigma. Aust Paediatr J 6:59–65

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brisson PA, Patel HI, Feins NR (2002) Revision of circumcision in children: report of 56 cases. J Pediatr Surg 37:1343–1346

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Redman JF (1995) Circumcision revision in prepubertal boys: analysis of a 2-year experience and description of a technique. J Urol 153:180–182

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Kaplan GW(1983) Complications of circumcision. Urol Clin North Am 10:543–549

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Smey P (1985) Re: Penile denudation injuries after circumcision. J Urol 134:1220

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Van Duyn J, War WS (1962) Excessive penile skin loss from circumcision. J Med Assoc Ga 51:394–396

    Google Scholar 

  16. Upadhyay V, Hammodat HM, Pease PW (1998) Post circumcision meatal stenosis: 12 years’ experience. N Z Med J 111:57–58

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Persad R, Sharma S, McTavish J, Imber C, Mouriquand PD (1995) Clinical presentation and pathophysiology of meatal stenosis following circumcision. Br J Urol 75:91–93

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Raynor SC (2000) Circumcisions. In: Ashcraft K, Murphy JP (eds) Pediatric surgery, 3rd edn. W.B. Saunders , Philadelphia pp 783–786

    Google Scholar 

  19. Atikeler MK, Onur R, Gecit I, Senol FA, Cobanoglu B (2001) Increased morbidity after circumcision from a hidden complication. BJU Int 88:938–940

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Campbell M, Walsh PC (1998) Campbell`s urology, 7th edn. W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia, p 1633

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank pupils and parents, teachers, and chiefs of elementary schools of Khorram-Abad city for their cooperation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rooh-Allah Yegane.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yegane, RA., Kheirollahi, AR., Salehi, NA. et al. Late complications of circumcision in Iran. Ped Surgery Int 22, 442–445 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-006-1672-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00383-006-1672-1

Keywords

Navigation