Foreskin Transplant?

I know it is possible to have a transplant from a living or deceased donor, but which doctor would specialize in this situation and how much would the cost be for such an operation? Also, I am well aware that there is still a large majority of people in the U.S. who find the foreskin disgusting and unnecessary, so please leave out negative personal opinions; I have heard just about all of them already. I am also wondering if it would be more worth it to just have the entire organ transplanted, especially because the donor foreskin may not fit properly.

On another note, there has been no conclusive evidence that circumcision prevents HIV any more than cutting off your toes prevents foot fungus.

owenlax1...

I enjoyed your response, and by personal opinions, I should have said "childish" personal opinions. That was my bad. As far as HIV goes, I don't plan on sleeping around with people I do not know, and whether you have a foreskin or not, once is all it would take to catch it.

I would be very happy if infact this would work...but, unfortunately there is more involved here than attaching some skin to your penis, (the pro-circ'ers claim it is just skin), there are thousands of nerves in a foreskin that would have to be connected, and to what? The part of the nerves that was left behind in your penis after you were mutialted have all withered and died as they no longer connected to anything. Your brain would not even know how to process the sensations as pleasure. The best solution available is non-surgical restoration, this will allow you to regain the use of the nerves that are still active but desensitized by friction and drying.

My best bet would be to contact a plastic surgeon who could refer you to a specialist in this area.

Talk with your urologist, there's other options you can take that may be more cost effective for you. If this doesn't appeal to you, then call their office and ask him to refer you to a plastic surgeon in your area.

That's possible? That's the first I've ever heard of it. I don't think foreskin is ugly or disgusting, I've got one, and I agree whole-heartedly with you about the lack of evidence regarding the supposed HIV prevention, I think it's a load of bull. Plus, I think circumcision is unnecessary, as it has no purpose whatsoever and at least the foreskin keep the glans protected and sensitive. Don't chop off your penis though, because I'm pretty sure it would be better if you kept what you have, as all the nerves can't all be reattached perfectly, and you'd most likely suffer some sensitivity loss. I'm just still a little shocked that there is such an operation.

Your surgical options would probably include a skin graft (from your scrotal area). Other less painful options would involve growing your own foreskin, i.e. stretching it. Google foreskin restoration.

This would fall under plastic surgery, likely with a urological consult. Penis transplant is a very rare, very complex, and very dangerous surgery (the risk of bleeding and infection is high, the wound area is irregular in contour, and very few have been performed to date). Additionally the cost of penis-transplant is extremely high, and the procedure is so dangerous that many if not all doctors will refuse to do it on a cosmetic basis (usually it's done for someone who has literally lost most or all of their penis due to an accident, and even then it's rare). Foreskin transplant is relatively easy, and something a cosmetic surgeon would probably have no major qualms about doing.

I urge you, however, to consider the pros and cons of such a procedure. As with any surgery, there are risks involved such as bleeding, pain, infection and the risk that your body will reject the transplanted tissue, warranting further surgery and possible cosmetic deformity. The risks are low, but hey, you should be aware of them.

There are other techniques (foreskin restoration) you could try before resorting to something as costly and potentially dangerous as surgery. Though you will not regain the cells which make the foreskin unique, you will regain a sheath over the glans, which many men have reported will lead to increased sensitivity and lubrication (via moisture) of the glans.

You should also consider not pursuing either. If it ain't broke, why fix it? As someone who had to undergo the reverse (I had to be circumcised for health reasons), I understand your desire to get a foreskin (they are certainly nice), but remind you that penile surgery, in any manner or fashion, is not pleasant (trust me, it's really really really really gross and freaky to see an incision line of any kind on your penis)

Keeping personal viewpoints about circumcision aside I think it was rather hypocritical of you to request people to leave out personal opinions but included that bit about HIV prevention. As someone who has studied it, though not entirely conclusive yet (i.e. not enough studies have been carried out to consider it so) based on the studies that *have* been done, it actually does, up to 60%, but only in select cases (i.e. heterosexual intercourse, no effect for homosexual, and diminished effect if procedure is performed as adult versus infant). Keep in mind that they had to stop one of the African studies early because it was considered unethical to keep some of the subjects uncircumcised given the observed benefit of circumcision in reducing HIV transmission. so "on another note" please read the literature before making unnecessary claims.

Best of luck to you in your pursuits.

as much as I sympathize with you on wishing you could replace foreskins, I think transplant would be a bad option. There are VERY serious risks with organ transplant- rejection, infection, death etc. You'd have to take a cocktail of immuno-supressants for the rest of your life to prevent your body from rejecting your new foreskin. They also tried a penile transplant recently in asia, but I heard it later failed. So it's never been done suxccesfully to transplant the entire organ. You'd need to talk to a urologist and the cost would be astronomical because it would be an experimental, cosmetic procedure. I think at this point the risks would far outwiegh the benefits. There's also no gaurantee that there would be satisfactory sensation in your newly transplanted foreskin, its VERY delicate to properly connect oall the nerves ewtc and the tissue would be damaged by the transplant itself. You're probably better off having a specialist construct a neo-foreskin using a graft of your own skin, or using the stretching methods available. -Neb

I can understand your wanting your foreskin restored, but I don't know if it would be worth the risk and discomfort. If you have it done, make sure it is done with some of your own skin. As to the claim that circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS, Pinche has researched it thoroughly and answered my question on "the big C" succinctly. I don't think he will mind if I put his answer here(it will save you looking for it):

For those who say it is cleaner, here is what the AAP had to say on it:
Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygiene since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimal penile hygiene.

Penis cancer *3 (American Cancer Society):
However, the penile cancer risk is low in some uncircumcised populations, and the practice of circumcision is strongly associated with socio-ethnic factors, which in turn are associated with lessened risk. The consensus among studies that have taken these other factors into account is circumcision is not of value in preventing cancer of the penis.

AIDS, there were a few studies conducted by pro-circ people with US money that showed the transmission rate was lowered in Africa with circumcision. I do not agree with these studies, they were cut off early and the control groups destroyed, by then circumcising them. There was recently a statement release from the CDC showing circumcision had no effect on AIDS transmission in the US. (*1)

Now lets just say this were true that circumcision did reduce the AIDS transmission rate. The hypothesis for this, it the high concentration of Langerhans Cell in the prepuce (foreskin), as they claim the Langerhans cells are the perfect host for the AIDS virus (*2). Langerhans cells are also highly concentrated in the female prepuce (Clitoral Hood) and Labia. So if it has AIDS reduction for males, it would also have an AIDS reduction for circumcised females. I am pretty sure most women would rather use a condom than get circumcised. Not to mention AIDS could be cured by the time kids born today are sexually active.

I might also point out, that the US has the highest AIDS rate of any first world country (3 times worse than the next), and the US is mostly circumcised, and we are the only first world country to circumcise for health reasons.


I am having a son in six weeks, so I have researched this subject fully. Every reason for circumcision has huge holes in it. What the subject really comes down to, is doing unnecessary surgery to an infant is a human rights violation.

Hotlilmama Wrote:
most uncircumcised men develops this condition in which the foreskin over the penis becomes tightened around the penis which causes excruciating pain and always leeds to the man having to get circumcised later on in life which is way more painful

So most uncircumcised men will get this? 80-85% of the men in the world are uncircumcised, doesn't sound like you did much research.


1 - reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN0345...
2 - health.howstuffworks.com/circum-aids.htm
3 - cancer.org/docroot/NWS/content/NWS_1_1x_...
6 hours ago