Home | About Us | Current Issue | Ahead of print | Archives | Search | Instructions | Subscription | Feedback | Editorial Board | e-Alerts | Login 
Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons
     Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons
Official journal of the Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons         
 Users Online:4639 
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size


 
Table of Contents   
IMAGES IN CLINICAL PRACTICE
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 87
 

Urethral transection following neonatal circumcision using a Plastibell device


Department of Pediatric Urology, Apollo Children's Hospital, Chennai, India

Date of Web Publication17-Mar-2012

Correspondence Address:
Venkat Sripathi
Department of Pediatric Urology, Apollo Children's Hospital, 15, Md Shafee Road, Thousand Lights, Chennai - 600 006
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0971-9261.93977

Rights and Permissions

 



How to cite this article:
Sripathi V, Padankatti LR, Shad J. Urethral transection following neonatal circumcision using a Plastibell device. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg 2012;17:87

How to cite this URL:
Sripathi V, Padankatti LR, Shad J. Urethral transection following neonatal circumcision using a Plastibell device. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg [serial online] 2012 [cited 2019 Nov 19];17:87. Available from: http://www.jiaps.com/text.asp?2012/17/2/87/93977


A five-year-old male child presented with a large fistula in the coronal region. The mother gave history of a Plastibell device being applied in the newborn nursery and the child subsequently voiding from the coronal region. Clinical examination revealed an abnormally large meatus with a small glans bridge and a small suture around it. In the coronal region, the ventral half of the urethra was transected across. Although urethral injuries are not unknown following the use of the Plastibell device, [1],[2] we feel this amount of urethral damage is most unusual. It could only be explained by assuming that the child had the 'Megameatus Intact Prepuce' variant of hypospadias, and the suture on the Plastibell device had perhaps slipped and cut through the thin urethra in the coronal region. However, the small retained suture around the glans bridge could not be explained. This image adds another reason for advising caution before using the Plastibell device in the penis of a newborn, without careful clinical examination [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Appearance of phallus after circumcision

Click here to view


 
   References Top

1.Bode CS, Ikhisemoje S, Ademuyiywa AO. Penile injuries from proximal migration of the Plastibell circumcision. J Pediatr Urol 2010:6;23-7.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.El-Bahnasaway MS, El-Sherbiny MT. Paediatric penile trauma. BJU Int 2000:90;92-6.  Back to cited text no. 2
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article

    

 
  Search
 
  
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Article in PDF (387 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    References
    Article Figures

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3787    
    Printed111    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded118    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


Contact us | Sitemap | Advertise | What's New | Copyright and Disclaimer 

  2005 - Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 

Online since 1st May '05