WHAT THE HECK got into your cornflakes mamajulie? This most certainly IS the best place to ask this question here... there are a LOT of people here who are very familiar with these types of problems and the most conservative respectful way to treat this issues. Where the heck else are you going to find a bunch of people who even know what meatal stenosis IS? This is not the place to be snarky over the past. What's going on today is the only issue. This mom needs some support and she should get some!
Trish- You did get some good info if you managed to get to it. I also think what your son has is Meatal Stenosis, it is treatable, but it may require surgery and that surgery may change the look of the meatus (make it very large)
The article on E-medicine is probably the best for giving you the rund down on the treatment and the cause.
You need to understand that this is something that happend because he was circumcisied, that means it's Iotragenic- "caused by the hands of the Dr." If I was you, I would be collecting the birth records for a lawsuit. I am sure the hospital consent form did not clearly explain this risk to you. The AAP also tried to hide this risk from you. The AAP should be sued along with the hospital and the circumcising Dr. Part of the settlemnt should be the reform of the informed consent policy.
the AAP says that Meatal stenosis is one of the complications of circ (they list 20) but they give a grand total of complications at like .2% ... well Meatal stenosis happens to like one in 10 circumcised boys- it's totally common- so the AAP lied. they need to be accountable for the way they PROMOTE circumcision by hiding facts from parents. facts about how their child could be effected.
there is a thread from a while back on this subject too... I'll see if I can find it.... I'm sorry, but in that thread the OP says some stuff that may not be comforting to you... apparently her DH had surgery to correct meatal stenosis and it was a very dramatic alteration.... I do not think all meatal stenosis cases are fixed so radically... but what is tricky is the "tube" of the urethra- immediatly behind the pee hole- it really widens up into a large cavity and then narrows again inside the shaft of the penis... if you slit a teeny bit at the tip- it can open up a very large opning.http://mothering.com/discussions/sho...ghlight=meatal
"The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown.
32 Reports of two large series have suggested that the complication rate is somewhere between 0.2% and 0.6%.
33,34 Most of the complications that do occur are minor.35 The most frequent complication, bleeding, is seen in ~0.1% of circumcisions.35 It is quite rare to need transfusion after a circumcision because most bleeding episodes can be handled quite well with local measures (pressure, hemostatic agents, cautery, sutures). Infection is the second most common of the complications, but most of these infections are minor and are manifest only by some local redness and purulence.33 There also are isolated case reports of other complications such as recurrent phimosis, wound separation, concealed penis, unsatisfactory cosmesis because of excess skin, skin bridges, urinary retention, meatitis, meatal stenosis
, chordee, inclusion cysts, and retained Plastibell devices.35 Case reports have been noted associating circumcision with such rare events as scalded skin syndrome, necrotizing fasciitis, sepsis, and meningitis, as well as with major surgical problems such as urethral fistula, amputation of a portion of the glans penis, and penile necrosis.32,35"
Why does the AAP repetetedly state that the understimated complicaions are MINOR? Do you feel like this is MINOR? I doubt it! I bet you feel like this is pretty major! So why the dismissiv attitude AAP? What is your motivation to underplay the risk these children face?
Drs against circ pinpoint the problemshttp://faculty.washington.edu/gcd/DO...r10-15-02.html
Love to you- Sarah