There are only limited therapies available at present to assist those who wish to regain the skin, the erogenous sensation, and the normal physical appearance lost to circumcision.
First, non-surgical techniques such as skin stretching have been of some assistance to those wishing to reverse their circumcision and provides probably the best form of therapy currently available. By this means, the skin of the penile shaft is gradually stretched over time (usually over a 10-hour period repeated daily for at least two-three years) to create more skin on the penile shaft, so as to cover the glans once more. This thereby re-sensitizes the glans and restores a closer-to-normal appearance to the penis. This therapy is inexpensive, but is extremely slow-acting (taking years), as well as uncomfortable to a degree as it requires the stretching of tissue that would not normally need to be placed under such stress. Most importantly, such therapy produces only a limited outcome, in that it can only stretch the tissue that is present on the penis post-circumcision. It can not replace or regrow the nervous tissue cut off the penis during circumcision, nor recreate the unique structure of the foreskin, especially that of a functional frenulum (almost always cut or torn in circumcision), the inner mucosal tissue, and the frenar band at the tip of the foreskin, which are all critical parts of a natural human penis. Finally, it does not produce a foreskin which remains naturally closed over the glans, nor removes the unsightly circumcision scar from the penis shaft.
There are a number of worthwhile institutes and enterprises dedicated to assisting men to “restore” their penis in this way. For more information on such therapy, click here.
Secondly, latex medical devices which mimic the presence of a foreskin are available commercially (see, for example, the Senslip). These products, which are physically attached by the patient to a circumcised penis, give the impression and mimic some of the functions of a foreskin in the flaccid state (namely, protecting the glans from rubbing and desensitisation.) Their drawback, unfortunately, is that they do not in fact bring back in any way the foreskin to the penis, which remains in its circumcised state. They are useful, however, for men who cannot undertake skin stretching techniques.
Thirdly, skin grafting (either from the patient himself or from a third party source) has proven to be undesirable and has yielded very poor outcomes. This is due to the fact that the skin grafted on to imitate the foreskin does not have the unique properties or consistency of the foreskin. The skin grafted is thicker, rougher and does not have the appearance or function that the natural foreskin does, in particular that of the lined mucosa of the inner foreskin. Additionally, skin grafting bears the risk of immune rejection and evem more significant scarring than circumcision produces. Skin grafting does not restore the sense capacity lost in circumcision because it does not bring back the sensitive nerve tissue of the foreskin but merely provides normal skin to imitate what once was there.
None of these therapies in fact restores the original tissue of the foreskin removed in circumcision, which is what makes them so limited in their scope. None recreates the appearance and function of the human foreskin. Only regenerative medicine is capable of producing actual tissue regeneration with the real skin of the intact adult male.