Release of adhesion was performed in nine cases (20%), whereas meatotomy was performed in four cases of meatal stenosis (8.9%) (Fig. 4).
The three cases of concealed penis (6.7%) were repaired, whereas the degloving penile skin required the removal of the scar tissue and plastic correction (Fig. 5).
The rate of performing circumcision varies with different countries, racial groups, social levels and religious background.
The most common procedures involve the use of the Gomco clamp, as described by Manson  or the Mogen clamp or Plastibell device, used by Kariher and Smith .
Successful performance depends on the awareness of the technique and to make the resection of the foreskin at the coronal level. The degree of circumcision can be assist.
In relation to the length of the foreskin that remained after the operation.
The degree of circumcision can be assessed in relation to the length of the foreskin that remained covering the glans after the operation, and the exposure of the coronal sulcus into four types: A, B, C and D (Wynder and Licklider ), where A means that the glans is almost completely covered by foreskin, B, C means that the glans is partially covered by foreskin and D means complete removal of the foreskin. The degree of circumcision may also be classified into three grades: Circumcised, Partially Circumcised, and Uncircumcised (Dunn and Buell ).
As the total number of circumcisions performed in our region was not available, and our unit of paediatric surgery is one of several referral centres in the region, and some of these cases are referred to urological and plastic surgery units as well, the incidence of postcircumcision complication is unknown.
Nevertheless, our findings suggest the significant technical problems in performing the circumcision in this region.
The most common indication for revision circumcision was the presence of excess foreskin, (uncircumcized appearance), which was 35.6% in our report versus 40.1% in the study carried out by Pieretti et al. . Similarly, Brisson et al.  found that redundant foreskin was the most common indication for revision circumcision.
Williams and Kapila  reported a complication rate of 2–10%, whereas Leitch  showed an early complication of 8% and a late complication of 7.5% in his study.
A number of mild cases of complications, such as meatal stenosis and fore skin adhesion, can be easily treated [9,10].
Major complication injuries resulting from instrumentation are retained Plastibell rings,  Glans amputation,  injuries to the glans and corpus cavernosum,  total ablation of the penis  and Penile Amputation .
The four cases of meatal stenosis that required correction by meatotomy procedure gave a history of meatal ulcer after circumcision operation.
On reviewing the literature, half the cases of meatal stenosis occurred in children with meatal ulceration .
Freud  considers the meatal orifice to be abnormally small if the anteroposterior diameter is 3 mm or less.
Williams  regarded the stenosis as secondary to ulceration.
Most of the acquired cases of phimosis after circumcision are because of very little foreskin removed at operation, with the infection at the circumcized site that is healed by fibrosis. Twelve cases in this study were treated by resection of the scar and recircumcision.
With regard to the three concealed penises even after circumcision, inadequate dissection of the prepuce and removal of excess penile skin are the causes of this complication;  a number of reported complications are due to failure to observe the recommendations for the use of the device.
The most commonly accepted theory is the tendency of the penile shaft to retract into a deep prepubertal fat pad by the reaction of the newly formed circular mucocutaneous union with cicatrization. The puckering scar tissue build up closes over the retracted penis .
Trier and Drach  suggested that owing to inadequate separation of the inner surface of the prepuce from the glans, coupled with the use of a circumcision device, can lead to the problem of penile concealment.
Circumcision is a surgical procedure that is associated with potential operative and postoperative complications. Most of these complications result from the use of various techniques without the proper knowledge and skills.
Most of these complications can be prevented by adequate training in the technique and its postoperative care.
1. Manson WW. Circumcision
of the newborn; an exact technique for the use of the Gomco clamp. US Armed Forces Med J. 1950;1:586–589
2. Kariher DH, Smith TW. Immediate circumcision
of the newborn. Obstet Gynecol. 1956;7:50–53
3. Wynder E, Licklider SD. The question of circumcision
. Cancer. 1960;13:442
4. Dunn JE, Buell P. Association of cervical cancer with circumcision
of sexual partner. J Nat Cancer Inst. 1959;22:749–764
5. Pieretti Rafael V, Goldstein Allan M, Pieretti Vanmarcke R. Late complications
of newborn circumcision
: a common and avoidable problem. Pediatr Surg Int. 2010;26:515–518
6. Brisson PA, Patel HI, Feins NR. Revision of circumcision
in children: report of 56 cases. J Pediatr Surg. 2002;37:1343–1346
7. Williams N, Kapila L. Complications
. Br J Surg. 1993;80:1231–1236
8. Leitch IO. Circumcision
: a continuing enigma. Aust Paediatr J. 1970;6:59–65
9. Kaplan GW. Complications
. Urol Clin North Am. 1983;10:543–549
10. Ponsky LE, Ross JH, Knipper N, Kay R. Penile adhesions after neonatal circumcision
. J Urol. 2000;164:495–496
11. Datta NS, Zinner NR. Complication from Plastibell circumcision
ring. Urology. 1977;9:57–58
12. Gluckman GR, Stoller ML, Jacobs MM, Kogan BA. Newborn penile glans amputation during circumcision
and successful reattachment. J Urol. 1995;153:778–779
13. Cetinkaya M, Saglam HS, Beyribey S. Two serious complications
: case report. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1993;27:121–122
14. Gearhart JP, Rock JA. Total ablation of the penis after circumcision
with electrocautery: a method of management
and long-term followup. J Urol. 1989;142:799–801
15. Audry G, Buis J, Vazquez MP, Gruner M. Amputation of penis after circumcision
penoplasty using expandable prosthesis. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 1994;4:44–45
16. Patel H. The problem of routine circumcision
. Can Med Assoc J. 1966;95:576–581
17. Freud P. The ulcerated urethral meatus in male children. J Pediatr. 1947;31:131–141
18. Williams DI Urology in childhood. Encyclopedia of Urology. 1958. Berlin Springer-Verlag:244
19. Trier WC, Drach GW. Concealed penis: another complication of circumcision
. Am J Dis Child. 1973;125:276–277
20. Talarico RD, Jasaitis JE. Concealed penis: a complication of neonatal circumcision
. J Urol. 1973;110:732–723
Keywords:© 2011 Annals of Pediatric Surgery
circumcision; pitfall; complications; management