Minimally invasive correction of concealed penis in children: technical features and long-term outcomes
Received: 2026-10-05
Published: 2026-03-30
Abstract
Background: Recurrent retraction remains the main problem after surgery for concealed penis, whereas standard correction requires circumferential skin incision and extensive degloving.
Objective: To describe a minimally invasive raphe approach and assess its long-term outcomes.
Materials and Methods: A prospective comparative study included 106 boys aged 1–17 years. Fifty-nine children with preserved foreskin underwent minimally invasive correction through a single longitudinal midline incision with shaft mobilization, excision of dysplastic dartos bands, removal of suprapubic fat, and fixation; fine-needle liposuction was used in 30 obese children. Forty-seven children treated through a standard circumferential approach formed the comparison group.
Results: No severe complications occurred. The minimally invasive approach reduced anesthesia duration (116.4±45.5 vs 131.7±43.5 min; p=0.037). Mean visible shaft length increased from 40.8 to 63.0 mm, and the gap between visible and true length decreased to 0.1–0.5 cm. Urinary flow parameters normalized, and no recurrent retraction, scar contracture, or reoperation was recorded.
Conclusion: Minimally invasive correction through the raphe preserves the skin envelope, provides stable shaft exteriorization, and yields favorable long-term anatomical and functional outcomes.
Keywords
List of references
-
Cimador M, Catalano P, Ortolano R, Giuffre` M. The inconspicuous penis in children. Nat Rev Urol. 2015;12(4):205–215. doi:10.1038/nrurol.2015.49.
-
Xiang BY, Peng JX, Shang XJ, Zu XB, Li DJ. Concealed penis: a review of multilevel classification and surgical reconstruction techniques. BJUI Compass. 2025;6(1):e470. doi:10.1002/bco2.470.
-
Cromie WJ, Ritchey ML, Smith RC, Zagaja GP. Anatomical alignment for the correction of buried penis. J Urol. 1998;160(4):1482–1484. doi:10.1016/S0022-5347(01)62597-7.
-
Fawzy M, Hadidi AT. Buried penis; what buried the penis? Front Pediatr. 2025;13:1590147. doi:10.3389/fped.2025.1590147.
-
Yener S, Ayyıldız HNK, Gu¨venc¸ FT, Yıldız ZA, ˙Ilc¸e Z. Surgical technique experience and results for concealed penis. Pediatr Surg Int. 2025;41(1):113. doi:10.1007/s00383-025-06013-x.
-
Delgado-Miguel C, Mej´ıa R, Amesty V, Rivas S, Lobato R, Lo´pez-Pereira P, Mart´ınez-Urrutia M. Dorsal dartos flap for buried penis treatment: surgical technique and long-term outcomes. Pediatr Surg Int. 2025;41(1):175. doi:10.1007/s00383-025-06181-w.
-
Weber DM, Scho¨nbucher VB, Landolt MA, Gobet R. The Pediatric Penile Perception Score: an instrument for patient self-assessment and surgeon evaluation after hypospadias repair. J Urol. 2008;180(3):1080–1084. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.060.
-
Рудин Ю.Э., Марухненко Д.В., Сайедов К.М. Хирургическая кор¬рекция скрытого полового члена у детей. Экспериментальная и клини-ческая урология. 2017;(2):110–117.
-
Mehrez A, El Gamal O, Omar M, Elmaadawy M, Nagla S. Patient and parent satisfaction after surgical repair of concealed penis in children. Afr J Urol. 2025;31(1):40. doi:10.1186/s12301-025-00484-z.
-
Emara M, El Shall S, Elrifaey S. Obese boys penile length: is it micropenis or just buried? Alexandria J Pediatr. 2024;37(2):153–158. doi:10.4103/ajop.ajop_23_24.
About the Authors
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.