In adults with a very narrow, thin, not overlong prepuce, a very good result often follows a combination of the dorsal slit with the inferior slit alongside of the frenum of Cloquet. The narrower and tighter the prepuce, the better the result, as the cuts are at once converted from longitudinal into transverse wounds, and the organ at once assumes the shape and condition of a circumcised organ, without having suffered any loss of substance; three stitches or sutures in each cut (silver or catgut) adjust the cut edges; a small roller of lint and adhesive plaster, placed so as to shoulder up against the corona, completes the dressing. Where this operation is practicable, by the thinness and narrowness of the prepuce, it has many advantages. I have repeatedly performed it on lawyers, book-keepers, clerks, and even laboring men, who have gone from the office to the courts, counting-rooms, or stores without the least resulting inconvenience or loss of time. In laborers it is better to perform the operation on a Saturday evening, which gives them a rest of thirty-six hours before going to their labor again. The operation is comparatively painless and almost bloodless, as there need not be more than half a teaspoonful of blood lost during the operation; there is no danger of any subsequent hæmorrhage, and, with proper precautions against the occurrence of erections, from seventy-two to ninety-six hours is sufficient for a complete union; the sutures are then removed and a simple lint and adhesive-plaster dressing worn for a few days more. In many, no more dressings are required. In many cases, with a properly adjusted dressing, that comes forward underneath so as to include the frenum, the simple dorsal slit is sufficient; but if any of the prepuce depasses the dressing underneath, it will puff and become oedematous and require frequent puncturing. To avoid it, it is better to make the Cloquet slit at once. This operation is of no value, and perfectly impracticable in a thick, pendulous prepuce. Absorption will often remove considerable preputial tissue, but where there is too much its very bulk interferes with its removal by any natural means.
Dilatation is recommended by a number of surgeons, but, I must admit, in my hands it has always proved a failure; it may be, that if the subsequent history of the cases reported as so operated upon had been carefully traced, the reports would not have been so good. Nelaton, whose dilating instrument is generally recommended, seems, himself, to prefer some of the circumcising methods, as in the volume on "Diseases of the Genito-Urinary Organs," in his "Surgery," being the sixth volume of the revised edition of 1884, by Desprès, Gillettte, and Horteloup, the subject of dilatation is dismissed in two short lines. St. Germain, of Paris, uses, as has been before observed, a two-bladed forceps, used after the manner of Nelaton, and reports good results. Dr. J. Lewis Smith agrees in his statements with Dr. St. Germain. Dr. Holgate, of New York, reports a like experience. In my own practice the prepuce has often been made _temporarily_ lax and retractable, but with the usual results of the return of the contraction, with a possible thickening of the inner fold, as a result of the interference; so that only in case of any immediate demand, where the tight prepuce is producing irritation, either through pressure or adhesions, or retained sebaceous matter, do I ever resort to dilatation; always, however, even then, not as a final operation, but merely as preparatory procedure toward a future operation of a more efficient order.