I am waiting for an appointment with a urologist due to scar tissue from circumcision. I was circumcised at birth (60 years ago). Over the years I have had surgery to remove scar tissue as a result of surgeries other than circumcision. Doctors tell me that my body tries to over heal causing scar tissue to form from injuries and including surgery. Doctors tell me that this is a hereditary condition that I was born with. Twenty years ago I was re-circumcised because scar tissue had formed causing irritation. A couple of years later, my doctor told me that he had wished the surgeon had removed more of my foreskin. His fear being that scar tissue would re-occur and the surgeon should have removed my frenulum. The scar tissue only develops on the loose foreskin and on the frenulum. In the last year irritation has started again. Last week my GP told me that the best way to stopped the scar tissue from re - occurring was to do a high tight circumcision including removing the frenulum. In the past, I have also ask my doctors who have done surgery on me for scar tissue about the scar tissue from my circumcision and they all have told me to get a high and tight including removing the frenulum. I got a call today from my health insurance company and they have approved the re-circumcision. They have given me a choice to have it done in the hospital or even to a circumcision center that does mostly circumcision for cosmetic. I feel more comfortable with going to the hospital since the circumcision center is locate a great distance from where I live.
My question to members of this forum, have any of you been re-circumcised for scar tissue problems. Also, any members who have went from a low-loose circumcision to a high-tight circumcision.
Your circumstances are vastly different than that of the average person.
That being said, I would fight a high and tight circumcision with everything I had.
The frenulum and the inner foreskin are more sensitive and responsive than the head.
I'd prefer a scarred frenulum and inner foreskin to none. If anything absolutely had to be done, I would tell them to remove the scar only, and leave the rest alone...even if it carried the risk of a re-circumcision in 20 years. High and tight would mean no movable skin whatsoever on your penis, not even the tiniest bit. Best of luck with whatever you decide.
I was not circumcised until I was in my mid 50s, and when I finally decided I opted for the low and tight style with the frenum removed.
A few years later I noticed that a small nodule of scar tissue had developed inside the shaft skin, just behind the circumcision scar on the right hand side.
I don't think this was anything to do with the circumcision scar, which had healed up perfectly, I think it was due to the use of a vacuum developer years ago.
The surgeon removed this nodule of scar tissue by making an incision about 2cm long just behind the circumcision scar. This healed up perfectly and the scar from this is now almost undetectable.
Since then my circumcision had tended to become looser, so about a month ago I had a revision circumcision to tighten it up. So now it's very low and very tight - this is just my preference, both for appearance and resistance to sexually transmitted diseases, which usually enter via the inner foreskin and frenum. The scar has already almost completely healed.
From what you say, it appears that your scar tissue is forming on the circumcision scar itself. I think you would need to take professional advice about that. However, there is nothing wrong with having the frenum removed - this is usually preferred.
Finally, I don't think it's actually possible to go from a low and loose circumcision to a high and tight one, because if the circumcision is low, most of the inner foreskin will already have been removed, irrespective of whether the circumcision is loose or tight. I would therefore suggest low and tight, frenum removed in your case, as I have never had any problems with this style. Hope that helps.
Tommy124 - I think circumcision style, including frenulum removal, should ideally be left to the individual to decide. However, if the frenulum is removed, the nerves underneath still remain active.
When I was first circumcised, only the half the frenulum nearest the circumcision scar was removed, the half nearest the glans remaining intact. The cut was at about 45 degrees, sloping towards the glans.
I did not like the look of this, so I removed the remaining half of the frenulum myself with a small pair of scissors, using some Emla cream as the anaesthetic. This hurt a bit but the result was well worth while.
I cut the frenulum close to the surrounding skin, but did not quite remove it all. The remaining 10% of the frenulum's depth soon shrank down to leave just a slightly raised line, minimising interference with the nerve endings underneath.
I think this is much better than the more radical excision of the frenulum I've sometimes seen in pictures of high and tight circumcisions. This would almost certainly result in a loss of sensitvity.