Talk:Preputioplasty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See Also - Foreskin restoration[edit]

The section I added is disputed. I added it in good faith in order that visitors here who come here because they have a genuine interest in the penis and foreskin may also see the article on Foreskin restoration. It was removed with the one word edit summary "Irrelevant". I am not about to get into a revert war over this. Instead I think we need to build a consensus over whether this item should or should not be included.

My rationale for including it, and especially in a "See also" section is that it nether adds to nor detracts from the article, but that it provides a link of interest for those who wish to follow it that is relevant to any article about the human foreskin or things done to it surgically.

Additionally, the article as a whole is lacking a See also section. There are many other links that would be of use within it. However I feel we should confine ourselves initially to looking at the one link to Foreskin Restoration. I propose that we include this link. I suggest we handle this in the usual manner and support or oppose below Fiddle Faddle 13:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (as proposer). Fiddle Faddle 13:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What does foreskin restoration have to do with preputioplasty? Surely it is a clean different subject. Masalai 14:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment They are different topics about the same part of the body. A reader seeing preputioplasty is likely, but not certain, to be interested in other topics about the penis, about male genital surgery, and about foreskins or the lack thereof. The intent of this link is just that: to lead the reader on in the best traditions of Wikipedia. It is distanced from the text because of the "See also" heading. Fiddle Faddle 14:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone looking at the preputioplasty article is going to have been led there from a more general article, where a link to your article is much more appropriate. Masalai 15:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a mistaken view. Anyone will access pages in whatever order they access them. I really can't see why you feel so strongly against this, but I accept that you have a right to your view. A thought might be a "Human Penis Navigation Template" that goes at the foot of all penis related articles. They are easy enough to make and save some time and trouble. Fiddle Faddle 15:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The subjects are unrelated. True, they both involve the foreskin, but I think this is a poor reason for linking the two. By similar reasoning, we should link elephant to beetle since both breathe oxygen... I would rather have a small number of highly relevant links than a large number that is less useful to the reader. Jakew 16:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think you are deploying reductio ad absurdum cleverly, but incorrectly. The link is substantially different from Elephant and Beetle via oxygen, or, below, London and Paris becaise both happen to be cities. Each of this article and foreskin restoration are procedures performed upon a penis. The linkage is substantially closer than the examples imply. Fiddle Faddle 17:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Precisely. I was going to compare inserting "See also Paris" in a London article or "See also Foot" in an ear article but Jakew's example is also to the point. One descends from the general to the particular, not from the particular to the particular, especially when they are so tangentially related. Masalai 17:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Foreskin restoration is physically repugnant because it looks disgusting. It also gets stuck in one's teeth as well when a man or woman is performing oral sex. It should therefore be banned as a surgical procedure, and anyone desiring to have their foreskin restored should be placed in psychological counseling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.187.126 (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Both involve surgeries on the foreskin performed to restore a dysfunctional (or absent) foreskin to working order. I'm adding the section back considering how nothing seems to have come of this vote. I am being bold based upon this reasoning. This is not merely 'casual interest' as some of you have put it. This isn't anywhere near elephant/beetle or linking a foot with an ear. You guys are using flagrantly exaggerated examples indicating some kind of bias. Tyciol (talk) 06:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no real harm in having it in the see also list, and I myself navigated to this page from foreskin restoration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.204.249 (talk) 23:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sutureless Prepuceplasty[edit]

Dear editor, There is a new technique for the treatment of children's phimosis that minimizes the repairing time, the postoperative complications and maintains the physical foreskin appearance intact. The title is: Sutureless prepuceplasty with wound healing by second intention: An alternative surgical approach in children's phimosis treatment. Author: Efstratios Christianakis, MD, phD. BMC Urology 2008, 8:6doi You can find the whole article free in PubMed.

Sincerely yours,

Efstratios Christianakis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.145.222 (talk) 10:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss edits: Preputioplasty[edit]

SUTURELESS PREPUCEPLASTY

The following phrase in methods of performing preputioplasty is not corect so it should be subsistuted by the paragraph following below.

In the alternative to suturing, "[h]aemostasis [has been successfully] performed [in children] with a heated probe using the flame of an alcohol lamp or with bipolar electrodiathermy."[2]

In the alternative to suturing, sutureless prepuceplasty (SP) is a new technique with different philosophy, where single or triple wounds are healing by second and not by first intention. It creates a permanent surgical extension of the close prepuce. SP minimizes the repairing time, the postoperative complications and maintains the physical foreskin appearance intact. The healing is completed in 20 to 30 days, with daily topical use of antisepsis, steroids and cicatrizant creams.

Kindly Regards,

Christianakis Efstratios, MD, PhD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.100.114 (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Preputioplasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Preputioplasty&oldid=1204902639"