Korean J Urol.  2012 Jun;53(6):431-434.

Effect of Preputial Type on Bacterial Colonization and Wound Healing in Boys Undergoing Circumcision

• Tarhan H
• Akarken I
• Koca O
• Ozgu I
• Zorlu F

Abstract

PURPOSE
In this study, we evaluated the effect of preputial type on bacterial colonization and wound healing in boys undergoing circumcision.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study consisted of 78 boys consecutively admitted to our clinic for circumcision between 2009 and 2011. Preputial status was classified into five types on the basis of preputial retractability. One sterile culture swab was swept circumferentially once around the surface of the glans starting just proximal to the urethral meatus. Three weeks following circumcision, control swabs from the same regions of the same patients were taken and inoculated. Thus, the same patients formed the control group. Patients were evaluated on days 1 and 7 after the operation to assess whether the preputial type affected healing.
RESULTS
The mean age of the children was 46.3 months. In our study, the growth rate was 71.8% in pre-circumcision patients, whereas the rate was 10.25% in the post-circumcision group. Types 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 had 100%, 93.8%, 71.4%, 44.4%, and 53.6% colonization, respectively. A significant difference was observed among these types in terms of colonization. The most common agent was Enterococcus species (33%). When postoperative patients were evaluated, all had local swelling and hyperemia on postoperative day 1, whereas there was a significant difference on day 7.
CONCLUSIONS
There was a significant correlation between preputial type and bacterial colonization, and the preputial type affected post-circumcision wound healing. Practitioners should keep in mind that the healing period will be longer in patients with type 1, 2, and 3 preputium.

Keyword

Bacterial colonization; Circumcision; Preputium; Urinary infection; Urinary pathogens

MeSH Terms

Child
Circumcision, Male
Colon
Enterococcus
Female
Humans
Hyperemia
Male
Wound Healing

Reference

1. Weiss H, Polonsky J. Male circumcision: global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability. 2007. Geneva: World Health Organisation & United Nations Joint Programme on HIV/AIDS.

2. Amir J. Ritual circumcision and urinary tract infection in Israel. Isr Med Assoc J. 2010. 12:303–304.

3. Zorc JJ, Levine DA, Platt SL, Dayan PS, Macias CG, Krief W, et al. Clinical and demographic factors associated with urinary tract infection in young febrile infants. Pediatrics. 2005. 116:644–648.

4. Cascio S, Colhoun E, Puri P. Bacterial colonization of the prepuce in boys with vesicoureteral reflux who receive antibiotic prophylaxis. J Pediatr. 2001. 139:160–162.

5. Glennon J, Ryan PJ, Keane CT, Rees JP. Circumcision and periurethral carriage of Proteus mirabilis in boys. Arch Dis Child. 1988. 63:556–557.

6. Tokgoz H, Polat F, Tan MO, Sipahi B, Sultan N, Bozkirli I. Preputial bacterial colonisation in preschool and primary school children. Int Urol Nephrol. 2005. 37:101–105.

7. Ginsburg CM, McCracken GH Jr. Urinary tract infections in young infants. Pediatrics. 1982. 69:409–412.

8. Kayaba H, Tamura H, Kitajima S, Fujiwara Y, Kato T, Kato T. Analysis of shape and retractability of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys. J Urol. 1996. 156:1813–1815.

9. Fussell EN, Kaack MB, Cherry R, Roberts JA. Adherence of bacteria to human foreskins. J Urol. 1988. 140:997–1001.

10. Hallett RJ, Pead L, Maskell R. Urinary infection in boys. A three-year prospective study. Lancet. 1976. 2:1107–1110.

11. Wiswell TE, Miller GM, Gelston HM Jr, Jones SK, Clemmings AF. Effect of circumcision status on periurethral bacterial flora during the first year of life. J Pediatr. 1988. 113:442–446.

12. Wiswell TE, John K. Lattimer Lecture. Prepuce presence portends prevalence of potentially perilous periurethral pathogens. J Urol. 1992. 148(2 Pt 2):739–742.

13. Günşar C, Kurutepe S, Alparslan O, Yilmaz O, Daglar Z, Sencan A, et al. The effect of circumcision status on periurethral and glanular bacterial flora. Urol Int. 2004. 72:212–215.

14. Wijesinha SS, Atkins BL, Dudley NE, Tam PK. Does circumcision alter the periurethral bacterial flora? Pediatr Surg Int. 1998. 13:146–148.