Objective: To assess the accuracy of pre-operative diagnosis of preputial pathology amongst urologists and general surgeons. Patients and Methods: Data were collected on 460 adult patients having had circumcision performed by either a general surgeon or a urologist over a 10-year period. Results: Pre-operative diagnosis was consistent with final histology in 83% of cases and further management was never altered by the histological result. Re-referral rates were 0% for general surgeons and 2.7% for urologists (P > 0.05) and there were no cases needing further surgical intervention. Conclusions: Routine submission of histological specimens for analysis and out-patient follow-up are not required following circumcision.Key words: Circumcision -Histology -Pathology - Follow-up Circumcision is one of the oldest and more frequently performed urological operations with over 35,000 being performed in England and Wales every year.' Several questions remain unanswered with regard to the management of this procedure: (i) what is the accuracy of pre-operative diagnosis compared with histological diagnosis; and (ii) does the histological diagnosis alter further management and do the patients require followup? Thus we retrospectively reviewed 460 consecutive patients who had a circumcision at our institution over a 10-year period.had circumcision performed at our institution for a variety of pathologies (Table 1). The clinical records were retrospectively analysed to determine the pre-operative diagnosis accuracy, frequency of histology requests and their effect on further management, and rates of follow-up. The incidence of re-referral and whether this led to surgical intervention were also assessed. For the purpose of analysis, a histological finding of non-specific inflammation or fibrosis was considered to be compatible with a preoperative diagnosis of phimosis.
Results
Patients and Methods