Glans injury during ritual circumcision.

Background: Circumcision is one of the most performed surgical procedure in the world, often performed for nontherapeutic reasons. Depending on cultural and social backgrounds, the procedure may be performed by various sources; from trained health care practitioners to laypeople, giving rise to different frequencies and types of complications. Glans injury during ritual circumcision is a rare yet serious complication due to its associated morbidity and long-term consequences.

Objective: In this study we describe the experience of two medical centers with the management and follow up of glans injury after ritual circumcision.

Methods: We have retrospectively reviewed the medical files of all pediatric patients who presented to the ER with glans injury, following ritual circumcision, over a 17-year period from two medical centers.

Results: A total of 8 patients were identified, who underwent ritual circumcision between 7 and 9 days of age. On presentation, 1 infant had complete glans amputation, the others presented with partial amputation of the glans. 6 of the 8 patients had a simultaneous urethral injury. All patients underwent surgical correction for their injury; Patients with isolated glans injury, underwent primary glans anastomosis. Of the 6 cases with simultaneous urethral injury: 3 underwent end-to-end urethral anastomosis following anastomosis of the amputated glans, one patient with complete glans amputation underwent a similar procedure, with initial end-to-end urethral anastomosis followed by glans anastomosis to the corpora cavernosa and 2 were managed by urethrostomy together with anastomosis of the amputated glans tissue to the remaining glans. Both patients with urethral injury, in whom end to end urethral anastomosis has not been performed, were found to have hypospadias on follow up. The rest had good functional and cosmetic results.

Discussion: There is no single method for managing glans injury following circumcision. Some authors describe healing by secondary intention with delayed formal repair, while others advocate for primary anastomosis of the amputated glans, together with distal urethra-urethrostomy, in cases with simultaneous urethral injury. In this study, both patients without urethral anastomosis, developed secondary hypospadias due to meatal regression and required additional surgery, while the others showed good results. The limitations of our study are its retrospective nature and the small number of cases, preventing us to come to a definitive conclusion regarding the best way to treat such a rare injury.

Conclusion: Prompt surgical correction by glanular replantation with urethro-urethrostomy, in case of concomitant urethral injury, give good cosmetic and functional results.