International Scholarly Research Notices

International Scholarly Research Notices / 2012 / Article

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2012 |Article ID 707329 |

Sukhbir Kaur Shahid, "Phimosis in Children", International Scholarly Research Notices, vol. 2012, Article ID 707329, 6 pages, 2012.

Phimosis in Children

Academic Editor: T. Okamura
Received22 Nov 2011
Accepted19 Dec 2011
Published05 Mar 2012


Phimosis is nonretraction of prepuce. It is normally seen in younger children due to adhesions between prepuce and glans penis. It is termed pathologic when nonretractability is associated with local or urinary complaints attributed to the phimotic prepuce. Physicians still have the trouble to distinguish between these two types of phimosis. This ignorance leads to undue parental anxiety and wrong referrals to urologists. Circumcision was the mainstay of treatment for pathologic phimosis. With advent of newer effective and safe medical and conservative surgical techniques, circumcision is gradually getting outmoded. Parents and doctors should a be made aware of the noninvasive options for pathologic phimosis for better outcomes with minimal or no side-effects. Also differentiating features between physiologic and pathologic phimosis should be part of medical curriculum to minimise erroneous referrals for surgery.

1. Introduction

“Phimosis” is inability to withdraw the narrowed penile foreskin or prepuce behindthe glans penis [1]. It is a not so uncommon complaint for which a child is brought to office of paediatrician. Parents are often overtly anxious and over-concerned about this nonretractability in their infant or toddler. Most of these cases end up in surgical interventions in form of circumcision. Analyses of medical records carried out in England and Western Australia revealed that medically indicated circumcisions were seven times more than the expected incidence of phimosis in children less than 15 years of age [2, 3]; implying thereby that there is a high rate of unnecessary circumcisions [4]. The operation of circumcision is not devoid of adverse effects and also has a huge economic impact [1, 57]. In order to avoid such unindicated expensive operations, it is important to elaborately redefine phimosis and know about newer noninvasive cheaper and safer treatment options.

2. Penile Development and Anatomy

Penile formation starts from 7th week of gestation and is complete by 17th week [8]. The integument of the penis in front folds on itself to form the prepuce or foreskin. It covers glans penis and urinary meatus. It serves many functions; the main being protective, immunologic, and erogenous. The inner mucous membrane of this 15 square inches double-layered fold merges with glans [9]. It is bound to under-surface of glans by means of a highly sensitive tissue called frenulum or “little bridle”. Prepuce is richly vascularised and innervated. Fine touch receptors abound on prepuce. Conventional circumcision removes most of these sensitive areas [10]. Unlike the prepuce, glans has only pressure receptors and no fine touch receptors. Glands present on prepuce and glans produce secretions, which aid in lubrication and defence against infection. Lysozyme in these secretions acts against harmful microorganisms. Cathepsin B, chymotrypsin, neutrophil elastase, cytokine, and pheromones such as androsterone are also produced. Langerhans cells are present in prepuce and they seem to provide resistance against HIV infection [9, 11, 12]. At birth and first few years of life, inner part of foreskin is adhered to glans and hence is nonretractile. This separates gradually over time leading to increased retractability.

3. Defining Phimosis

Around 96% of males at birth are noticed to have a nonretractile foreskin. This is due to naturally occurring adhesions between prepuce and glans and due to narrow skin of prepuce and “frenulum breve.” This is physiological phimosis. The foreskin gradually becomes retractable over a variable period of time ranging from birth to 18 years of age or more. This is aided by erections and keratinisation of the inner epithelium [13]. Thus preputial retractability improves with increasing age. But 2% of normal males continue to have non-retractability throughout life even though they are otherwise normal [1418]. In physiologic phimosis, the distal portion of foreskin is healthy and pouts with gentle traction. The narrowed part is proximal to the preputial tip. This differs from pathological phimosis wherein gentle traction leads to formation of a cone-shaped structure with the distal narrow part being white and fibrotic. The meatal opening is also pin-point [4]. It is important to distinguish between these two types of phimosis because their treatment varies widely. Whereas physiological phimosis only needs a conservative approach, surgical management seems justified in pathological phimosis.

But medical doctors are not trained enough to distinguish between these two types of phimosis [3, 1922]. Their misdiagnosis leads to unnecessary anxiety in parents and over-referrals to urologists for circumcision. Of the cases referred to a urology clinic, it was found that only 8–14.4% of them had “true” phimosis needing surgical intervention [23, 24].

4. Etiology of Phimosis

Physiologic phimosis is the rule in newborn males. The prepuce is adhered to glans and this separates over time. Enthusiastic attempts to retract foreskin in physiological phimosiscauses microtears, infection, and bleeding with secondary scarring and true phimosis. Poor hygiene and recurrent balanitis (infection of glans penis), posthitis (inflammation of foreskin), or both could lead to difficulty in retraction of foreskin and consequent true phimosis. Diabetes mellitus predisposes to these infections due to high glucose content of urine, which is conducive for bacterial proliferation [2527]. Pathologic phimosis may also be due to balanitisxerosisobliterans (BXO), a genital form of lichen sclerosus et atrophicus. This condition affects both men and boys. Its etiology is unknown; infectious, inflammatory, and hormonal causes have been implicated. It may represent a premalignant state [28]. Repeated catherization could also lead to phimosis.

5. Clinical Features

The incidence of pathological phimosis is 0.4 per 1000 boys per year or 0.6% of boys are affected by their 15th birthday. This is much lesser than physiological phimosis, which is common in younger children and decreases with age [3]. Physiologic phimosis involves only non-retractability of the foreskin. There may be some ballooning during urination. But pain, dysuria, and local or urinary infections are not seen in these cases. Even if urinary infection is present, it is usually not attributed to the phimosis. On gentle traction, the prepuce puckers and the overlying tissue are pink and healthy. In pathologic phimosis, there is usually pain, skin irritation, local infections, bleeding, dysuria, hematuria, frequent episodes of urinary tract infections, preputial pain, painful erection sand intercourse, and weak urinary stream. Occasionally, enuresis or urinary retention is noticed. The meatal opening is small and the tissue in front of the foreskin is white and fibrotic [2931]. Phimosis due to BXO is severe with meatal stenosis, glanular lesions, or both [28].

Phimosis in boys and adults can vary in severity. Meuli et al. have graded severity of phimosis into following 4 grades [32], namely, Grade I— fully retractable prepuce with stenotic ring in the shaft, Grade II—partial retractability with partial exposure of the glans, Grade III—partial retractability with exposure of the meatus only, and Grade IV—no retractability. There is another classification of phimosis severity invented by Kikiros et al., which is as follows: Grade 0 is full retractability, Grade 1 is full retraction but tight behind glans, Grade 2 is partial exposure of glans, Grade 3 is partial retraction with meatus just visible, Grade 4 is slight retraction but neither meatus nor glans visible, and Grade 5 is absolutely no retraction [15, 33, 34]. Based on state of the foreskin, phimosis is categorised in order of increasing severity as normal, “cracking,” scarred, and balanitis xerotica obliterans [33, 34].

6. Diagnosis

Diagnosis of phimosis is primarily clinical and no laboratory tests or imaging studies are required [35]. These may be required for associated urinary tract infections or skin infections. Treating physician should be able to distinguish developmental non-retractability from pathological phimosis. Grading of severity of phimosis should be done. Determination of etiology of phimosis, if possible, should be tried.

7. Management

When a child is brought with history of inability to retract the foreskin, it is important to confirm whether it is physiologic or pathologic. Management depends on age of child, type of nonretraction, severity of phimosis, cause, and associated morbid conditions.

8. Reassurance and Vigilance

When it is certain that phimosis in the child is not pathologic, it is vital to reassure the parents on normalcy of the condition in that age group. They should be taught how to keep the foreskin and its undersurface clean and hygienic. Normal washing with lukewarm water and gentle retractions during bathing and urination makes the foreskin retractile over time [36]. Mild soap can be used, but avoid strong soaps as it could lead to chemical irritant dermatitis and further phimosis. Reassurance and reinforcement of proper preputial hygiene may need to be repeated at periodic intervals.

9. Topical Steroids

Topical steroids have been tried in cases of phimosis since more than 2 decades. Overall, studies using topical creams for phimosis have yielded dramatic results. Efficacy figures range from 65 to 95% [1]. Mechanism of action of topical steroid therapy in phimosis is not exactly known. It is believed to act via its local anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive action. Mere moisturising is not the mode of action as prior use of moisturizing agents has failed to yield positive results. Golubovic et al. compared topical steroids with vaseline and found that 19/20 males benefited with steroids, whereas only 4/20 in vaseline group improved [37]. Steroids probably act by stimulating production of lipocortin. This in turn inhibits activity of phospholipase A2 and hence arachidonic acid production is decreased. Steroids also decrease mRNA and hence interleukin-1 formation is diminished. This causes anti-inflammation and immunosuppression [38]. Steroids also cause skin thinning. Dermal synthesis of glycosaminoglycans (especially hyaluronic acid) by fibroblasts is reduced. Epidermal proliferation and stratum corneum thickness is also decreased [39]. Betamethasone 0.05% applied twice a day over a 4-week period has consistently shown good results [13, 34, 37, 4045]. Success rate was higher in older boys with no infection [40, 43]. Poor compliance was noted to be cause of failures [44]. Studies carried out in younger children have also yielded good results [45]. 0.1% betamethasone cream usage also generated comparable results [46]. Dewan et al. found an efficacy of 65% with 1% hydrocortisone cream [47]. Other steroids tried and found to be effective in phimosis include clobetasol proprionate 0.05%, 0.1% triamcinolone, and mometasone dipropionate [42, 4853]. The age of the patient, type and severity of phimosis, proper application of the ointment, compliance with treatment, and the necessity of pulling back on the foreskin on a regular basis contribute to either success or failure of the medication [42, 44]. Adverse effects with topical steroids were rare and mild and include preputial pain and hyperemia. No significant side-effects were reported even in young patients [45]. Topical steroids are cheaper than circumcision by 27.4% [7, 54, 55]. They are also less harrowing and devoid of psychological trauma which is commonplace with circumcision [56]. Studies have shown that retractability declines several months after completion of therapy [33, 40]. However, a second course of topical steroids proves useful in such cases. Of concern to parents and providers alike is the degree of risk of systemic absorption of steroid and suppression of hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis. But this risk is minor considering the fact that the amount of steroid cream used and surface area of application is small. Besides, steroids are used only for 4–6 weeks. Golubovic et al. found that morning cortisol levels were not significantly elevated in patients who received betamethasone ointment versus controls [37]. Topical steroids could be used as a first-line treatment for pathologic phimosis and is a viable option prior to surgery. However, patients with BXO respond poorly to topical steroids. This may serve as a screening tool in such cases [57].

In order to alleviate the concern over side-effects of topical steroids, nonsteroid anti-inflammatory ointment, diclofenac sodium thrice daily was evaluated and found to be 75% efficacious as compared to petroleum jelly, which was effective in none of the cases used [58]. 0.1% estrogen cream has also been tested and found to be effective in 90% of the cases [59].

If a patient has concomitant balanitis or balanoposthitis, depending on the etiology, he may be treated with topical antibiotics or antifungals [60]. Proper serum glucose control is vital in diabetic patients [61].

10. Dilation and Stretching

In this, gentle preputial retractions are carried out by a doctor on an outpatient basis. This nonsurgical adhesiolysis is found to be effective, cheap, and safe treatment for phimosis [23, 6264]. Eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA) could be used prior to attempts at release of the preputial adhesions [65]. He and zhou used a specially designed patented balloon catheter with local anaesthesia in 512 boys and found it to be 100% useful. The technique was simple, safe, cheap, less painful, and less traumatising then the conventional circumcision. It was found to be more beneficial in younger children with no fibrosis or infection [66]. Combination therapy using stretching and topical steroids has also yielded excellent results [67, 68].

11. Surgical

These invasive measures are to be reserved for recalcitrant phimosis that fails to respond to medical management.

11.1. Conservative Surgical Alternatives

It is a conservative alternative to traditional circumcision which is fraud with many complications, problems, and risk [7, 6988]. Preputioplasty is the medical term for plastic surgery of the phimotic prepuce. This procedure has faster less painful recovery, less morbidity, less cost, and more preservation of foreskin and its various projectile, erogenous, and sexual physiologic functions [7, 86]. The disadvantage is that phimosis can recur [89]. Dorsal slit with transverse closure is recommended by many doctors due to its simplicity and good results [80]. The lateral procedure described by Lane and South provides cosmesis [85]. Frenulotomy and meatoplasty is also beneficial. Some of the procedures such as Y- and V-plasties (The Ebbehoj procedure) are complex and require skilled hands. Hence they are not favoured much.

11.2. Conventional Male Circumcision

In this case, the phimotic foreskin is totally excised. Circumcision is one of the oldest elective operations known in humans. It started as a religious/ritual sacrifice [90]. But gradually it became a routine neonatal procedure in USA and in some countries of Euro pein view of its reported hygiene and cancer-preventing benefits [91]. It cures phimosis and prevents recurrence [92]. It also prevents further episodes of balanoposthitis and lowers incidence of urinary tract infections [26, 9395]. But it is besot with its own innumerable short, and long-term problems. Pain, difficult recovery, bleeding, infection, psychological trauma, and high cost are seen with circumcision [96, 97]. The literature is full of reports of morbidity and even deaths with circumcision. Besides, circumcision could lead to keloid formation. Possibility of decline in sexual pleasure for both circumcised males as well as their female partners due to loss of erogenous tissue has been reported [96, 98105]. With advent of newer plastic surgical procedures for phimosis, this traditional surgery is gradually getting outdated. Circumcision is to be avoided in children with genital anomalies where the foreskin may be needed for later corrective surgery for the anomaly.

12. Other Experimental Options

Prolonged antibiotic therapy, intralesional steroid injection, carbon dioxide laser therapy, and radial preputioplasty alone or with intralesional injection of steroid have all been described as therapies for phimosis, but there are no proper randomised controlled trials of their efficacy and long-term outcomes.

13. Summary

Phimosis needs to be differentiated from non-retractile prepuce, which is the rule in young children. Doctors should be taught on distinguishing these two types of phimosis in order to avoid parental anxiety and needless referrals to urologists for circumcisions. Newer nonsurgical modalities such as topical steroids and adhesiolysis are effective, safe, and cheap for phimosis in children. Parents should be made aware of these measures to treat phimosis. If surgery is indeed needed, conservative plastic surgical techniques should be performed rather than the traditional circumcision. This would help the patients, their family, and the healthcare as well as the society at large.


  1. B. Steadman and P. Ellsworth, “To circ or not to circ: indications, risks, and alternatives to circumcision in the pediatric population with phimosis,” Urologic Nursing, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 181–194, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
  2. K. Spilsbury, J. B. Semmens, Z. S. Wisniewski, and C. D. A. J. Holman, “Circumcision for phimosis and other medical indications in Western Australian boys,” Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 178, no. 4, pp. 155–158, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  3. K. R. Shankar and A. M. K. Rickwood, “The incidence of phimosis in boys,” British Journal of Urology International, vol. 84, no. 1, pp. 101–102, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  4. P. A. Dewan, “Treating phimosis,” Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 178, no. 4, pp. 148–150, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
  5. R. S. Van Howe, “Is neonatal circumcision clinically beneficial? Argument against,” Nature Clinical Practice Urology, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 74–75, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  6. C. J. Mansfield, W. J. Hueston, and M. Rudy, “Neonatal circumcision: associated factors and length of hospital stay,” Journal of Family Practice, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 370–376, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  7. R. S. Van Howe, “Cost-effective treatment of phimosis,” Pediatrics, vol. 102, no. 4, p. E43, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  8. J. H. Yiee and L. S. Baskin, “Penile embryology and anatomy,” The Scientific World Journal, vol. 10, pp. 1174–1179, 2010. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  9. C. J. Cold and J. R. Taylor, “The prepuce,” British Journal of Urology International, vol. 83, 1, pp. 34–44, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  10. M. L. Sorrells, J. L. Snyder, M. D. Reiss et al., “Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis,” British Journal of Urology International, vol. 99, no. 4, pp. 864–869, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  11. S. Prakash, R, Raghuram, k. Venkatesan, and S. Ramakrishnan, “Sub-preputial wetness—its nature,” Annals of National Medical Science, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 109–112, 1982. View at: Google Scholar
  12. P. M. Fleiss, F. M. Hodges, and R. S. Van Howe, “Immunological functions of the human prepuce,” Sexually Transmitted Infections, vol. 74, no. 5, pp. 364–367, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  13. A. Orsola, J. Caffaratti, and J. M. Garat, “Conservative treatment of phimosis in children using a topical steroid,” Urology, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 307–310, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  14. D. Gairdner, “The fate of the foreskin, a study of circumcision,” British Medical Journal, vol. 2, no. 4642, pp. 1433–1437, 1949. View at: Google Scholar
  15. H. Kayaba, H. Tamura, S. Kitajima, Y. Fujiwara, T. Kato, and T. Kato, “Analysis of shape and retractability of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys,” Journal of Urology, vol. 156, no. 5, pp. 1813–1815, 1996. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  16. E. Imamura, “Phimosis of infants and young children in Japan,” Acta Paediatrica Japonica, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 403–405, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  17. E. Ishikawa and M. Kawakita, “Preputial development in Japanese boys,” Acta Urologica Japonica, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 305–308, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  18. J. Øster, “Further fate of the foreskin. Incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys,” Archives of Disease in Childhood, vol. 43, no. 228, pp. 200–203, 1968. View at: Google Scholar
  19. A. M. K. Rickwood and J. Walker, “Is phimosis overdiagnosed in boys and are too many circumcisions performed in consequence?” Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, vol. 71, no. 5, pp. 275–277, 1989. View at: Google Scholar
  20. D. Griffiths and J. D. Frank, “Inappropriate circumcision referrals by GPs,” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, vol. 85, no. 6, pp. 324–325, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  21. A. Gordon and J. Collin, “Save the normal foreskin,” British Medical Journal, vol. 306, no. 6869, pp. 1–2, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  22. N. Williams, J. Chell, and L. Kapila, “Why are children referred for circumcision?” British Medical Journal, vol. 306, no. 6869, p. 28, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  23. P. Kumar, M. Deb, and K. Das, “Preputial adhesions—a misunderstood entity,” Indian Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 76, no. 8, pp. 829–832, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  24. T. B. McGregor, J. G. Pike, and M. P. Leonard, “Phimosis—a diagnostic dilemma?” The Canadian Journal of Urology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 2598–2602, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  25. S. J. Bromage, A. Crump, and I. Pearce, “Phimosis as a presenting feature of diabetes,” British Journal of Urology International, vol. 101, no. 3, pp. 338–340, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  26. N. Fakjian, S. Hunter, G. W. Cole, and J. Miller, “An argument for circumcision. Prevention of balanitis in the adult,” Archives of Dermatology, vol. 126, no. 8, pp. 1046–1047, 1990. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  27. J. L. Cates, A. Finestone, and M. Bogash, “Phimosis and diabetes mellitus,” Journal of Urology, vol. 110, no. 4, pp. 406–407, 1973. View at: Google Scholar
  28. R. H. M. Thomas, C. M. Ridley, and M. M. Black, “Clinical features and therapy of lichen sclerosus et atrophicus affecting males,” Clinical and Experimental Dermatology, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 126–128, 1987. View at: Google Scholar
  29. T. B. McGregor, J. G. Pike, and M. P. Leonard, “Pathologic and physiologic phimosis: approach to the phimotic foreskin,” Canadian Family Physician, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 445–448, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
  30. S. T. Lundquist and L. B. Stack, “Diseases of the foreskin, penis, and urethra,” Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 529–546, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  31. T. Minagawa and Y. Murata, “A case of urinary retention caused by true phimosis,” Acta Urologica Japonica, vol. 54, no. 6, pp. 427–429, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
  32. M. Meuli, J. Briner, B. Hanimann, and P. Sacher, “Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus causing phimosis in boys: a prospective study with 5-year followup after complete circumcision,” Journal of Urology, vol. 152, no. 3, pp. 987–989, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  33. C. S. Kikiros, S. W. Beasley, and A. A. Woodward, “The response of phimosis to local steroid application,” Pediatric Surgery International, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 329–332, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  34. J. E. Wright, “The Treatment of childhood phimosis with topical steroid,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery, vol. 64, no. 5, pp. 327–328, 1995, Erratum in: Aust N Z J Surg 1995;65(9):698. View at: Google Scholar
  35. H. Z. Ghory and R. Sharma, “Phimosis and paraphimosis,” View at: Google Scholar
  36. C. J. Camille, R. L. Kuo, and J. S. Wiener, “Caring for the uncircumcised penis: what parents (and you) need to know,” Contemporary Pediatrics, vol. 11, p. 61, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  37. Z. Golubovic, D. Milanovic, V. Vukadinovic, I. Rakic, and S. Perovic, “The conservative treatment of phimosis in boys,” British Journal of Urology, vol. 78, no. 5, pp. 786–788, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  38. K. Kragballe, “Topical corticosteroids: mechanisms of action,” Acta Dermato-Venereologica, Supplement, vol. 69, no. 151, pp. 7–10, 1989. View at: Google Scholar
  39. P. Lehmann, P. Zheng, R. M. Lavker, and A. M. Kligman, “Corticosteroid atrophy in human skin. A study by light, scanning, and transmission electron microscopy,” Journal of Investigative Dermatology, vol. 81, no. 2, pp. 169–176, 1983. View at: Google Scholar
  40. L. S. Palmer and J. S. Palmer, “The efficacy of topical betamethasone for treating phimosis: a comparison of two treatment regimens,” Urology, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 68–71, 2008. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  41. C. C. Chu, K. E. C. Chen, and G. Y. Diau, “Topical steroid treatment of phimosis in boys,” Journal of Urology, vol. 162, no. 3 I, pp. 861–863, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  42. M. A. Monsour, H. H. Rabinovitch, and G. E. Dean, “Medical management of phimosis in children: our experience with topical steroids,” Journal of Urology, vol. 162, no. 3, pp. 1162–1164, 1999. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  43. T. K. Pless, N. Spjeldnœs, and T. M. Jørgensen, “Topical steroids in the treatment of phimosis in children,” Ugeskrift for Laeger, vol. 161, no. 47, pp. 6493–6495, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  44. P. Ellsworth and A. Berry, “Acceptance and success of topical betamethasone for phimosis as an alternative to circumcision,” Abstract presented at the Northeastern and New England Sections of the American Urologic Association Joint Annual Meeting held on November 2–6, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
  45. J. M. Elmore, L. A. Baker, W. T. Snodgrass, and P. Dewan, “Topical steroid therapy as an alternative to circumcision for phimosis in boys younger than 3 years,” Journal of Urology, vol. 168, no. 4, supplement, pp. 1746–1747, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  46. J. E. Ashfield, K. R. Nickel, D. R. Siemens, A. E. MacNeily, and J. C. Nickel, “Treatment of phimosis with topical steroids in 194 children,” Journal of Urology, vol. 169, no. 3, pp. 1106–1108, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  47. P. A. Dewan, H. C. Tieu, and B. S. Chieng, “Phimosis: is circumcision necessary?” Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 285–289, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  48. E. T. Jørgensen and A. Svensson, “The treatment of phimosis in boys, with a potent topical steroid (clobetasol propionate 0.05%) cream,” Acta Dermato-Venereologica, vol. 73, no. 1, pp. 55–56, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  49. T. Lindhagen, “Topical clobetasol propionate compared with placebo in the treatment of unretractable foreskin,” European Journal of Surgery, vol. 162, no. 12, pp. 969–972, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
  50. H. Klyver, S. O. Mortensen, O. P. Klarskov, and P. Christiansen, “Treatment of phimosis with a topical steroid in boys,” Ugeskrift for Laeger, vol. 163, no. 7, pp. 922–924, 2001. View at: Google Scholar
  51. T. M. Webster and M. P. Leonard, “Topical steroid therapy for phimosis,” The Canadian Journal of Urology, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 1492–1495, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
  52. S. Khope, “Topical mometasone furoate for phimosis,” Indian Pediatrics, vol. 47, no. 3, p. 282, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  53. F. D. O. Pileggi and Y. A. M. V. A. Vicente, “Phimotic ring topical corticoid cream (0.1% mometasone furoate) treatment in children,” Journal of Pediatric Surgery, vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 1749–1752, 2007. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  54. D. Berdeu, L. Sauze, P. Ha-Vinh, and C. Blum-Boisgard, “Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for phimosis: a comparison of surgical and medicinal approaches and their economic effect,” British Journal of Urology International, vol. 87, no. 3, pp. 239–244, 2001. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  55. Y. D. Nobre, R. G. Freitas, M. J. Felizardo, V. Ortiz, and A. Macedo, “To circ or not to circ: clinical and pharmacoeconomic outcomes of a prospective trial of topical steroid versus primary circumcision,” International Brazilian Journal of Urology, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 75–83, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
  56. E. Yilmaz, E. Batislam, M. M. Basar, and H. Basar, “Psychological trauma of circumcision in the phallic period could be avoided by using topical steroids,” International Journal of Urology, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 651–656, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  57. M. Fortier-Beaulieu, E. Thomine, P. Mitrofanof, P. Laurent, and J. Heinet, “Lichen sclerosusetatrophicus in children,” Annals of Pediatric, vol. 37, pp. 673–676, 1990. View at: Google Scholar
  58. M. Kemal Atilla, R. Dündaröz, O. Odabaş, H. Oztürk, R. Akin, and E. Gökçay, “A nonsurgical approach to the treatment of phimosis: local nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory ointment application,” Journal of Urology, vol. 158, no. 1, pp. 196–197, 1997. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  59. I. Muller and H. Muller, “New conservative therapy of phimosis,” Monatsschrift fur Kinderheilkunde, vol. 141, no. 7, pp. 607–608, 1993. View at: Google Scholar
  60. C. Lisboa, A. Ferreira, C. Resende, and A. G. Rodrigues, “Infectious balanoposthitis: management, clinical and laboratory features,” International Journal of Dermatology, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 121–124, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  61. B. Garcia-Bravo, P. Sanchez-Pedreno, A. Rodriguez-Pichardo, and F. Camacho, “Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus. A study of 76 cases and their relation to diabetes,” Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 482–485, 1988. View at: Google Scholar
  62. G. G. Cooper, G. J. L. Thomson, and P. A. M. Raine, “Therapeutic retraction of the foreskin in childhood,” British Medical Journal, vol. 286, no. 6360, pp. 186–187, 1983. View at: Google Scholar
  63. D. M. Griffiths and N. V. Freeman, “Non-surgical separation of preputial adhesions,” The Lancet, vol. 2, no. 8398, p. 344, 1984. View at: Google Scholar
  64. G. A. MacKinlay, “Save the prepuce. Painless separation of preputial adhesions in the outpatient clinic,” British Medical Journal, vol. 297, no. 6648, pp. 590–591, 1988. View at: Google Scholar
  65. A. Lim, Y. Saw, P. N. Wake, and R. S. Croton, “Use of a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics in the release of preputial adhesions: is it a worthwhile alternative?” British Journal of Urology, vol. 73, no. 4, pp. 428–430, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  66. Y. He and X. H. Zhou, “Balloon dilation treatment of phimosis in boys. Report of 512 cases,” Chinese Medical Journal, vol. 104, no. 6, pp. 491–493, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
  67. N. Zampieri, M. Corroppolo, F. S. Camoglio, L. Giacomello, and A. Ottolenghi, “Phimosis: stretching methods with or without application of topical steroids?” Journal of Pediatrics, vol. 147, no. 5, pp. 705–706, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  68. C. Ghysel, K. Vander Eeckt, and G. A. Bogaert, “Long-term efficiency of skin stretching and a topical corticoid cream application for unretractable foreskin and phimosis in prepubertal boys,” Urologia Internationalis, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 81–88, 2009. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  69. S. Parkash, “Phimosis and its plastic correction,” Journal of the Indian Medical Association, vol. 58, no. 10, pp. 389–390, 1972. View at: Google Scholar
  70. G. Kodega and G. Kus, “Operative treatment of phimosis by means of spiraloplastic operation of the foreskin,” Urologija i Nefrologija, vol. 38, pp. 56–57, 1973. View at: Google Scholar
  71. D. E. W. Holmlund, “Dorsal incision of the prepuce and skin closure with dexon in patients with phimosis,” Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology, vol. 7, no. 2-3, pp. 97–99, 1973. View at: Google Scholar
  72. A. J. J. Emmett, “Four V flap repair of preputial stenosis (phimosis). An alternative to circumcision,” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 687–689, 1975. View at: Google Scholar
  73. S. Parkash and B. Raghurama Rao, “Preputial stenosis-its site and correction,” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, vol. 66, no. 2, pp. 281–282, 1980. View at: Google Scholar
  74. T. Ohjimi and H. Ohjimi, “Special surgical techniques for relief of phimosis,” Journal of Dermatologic Surgery and Oncology, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 326–330, 1981. View at: Google Scholar
  75. A. J. J. Emmett, “Z-plasty reconstruction for preputial stenosis—a surgical alternative to circulation,” Australian Paediatric Journal, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 219–220, 1982. View at: Google Scholar
  76. G. Codega, D. Guizzardi, P. Di Giuseppe, and P. Fassi, “The helicoidalis plasty for the treatment of phimosis,” Minerva Chirurgica, vol. 38, no. 22, pp. 1903–1907, 1983. View at: Google Scholar
  77. S. Hoffman, P. Metz, and J. Ebbehoj, “A new operation for phimosis: prepuce-saving technique with multiple Y-V-plasties,” British Journal of Urology, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 319–321, 1984. View at: Google Scholar
  78. G. Moro, R. Gesmundo, A. Bevilacqua, E. Maiullari, and R. Gandini, “Circumcision with preputioplasty: notes on operative technique,” Minerva Chirurgica, vol. 43, pp. 893–894, 1988. View at: Google Scholar
  79. N. Wahlin, “‘Triple incision plasty’. A convenient procedure for preputial relief,” Scandinavian Journal of Urology and Nephrology, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 107–110, 1992. View at: Google Scholar
  80. P. M. Cuckow, G. Rix, and P. D. E. Mouriquand, “Preputial plasty: a good alternative to circumcision,” Journal of Pediatric Surgery, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 561–563, 1994. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  81. H. De Castella, “Prepuceplasty: an alternative to circumcision,” Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, vol. 76, no. 4, pp. 257–258, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  82. M. J. Leal and J. Mendes, “Ritual circumcision and the plastic repair of phimosis,” Acta Medica Portuguesa, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 475–481, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  83. H. Ohjimi, K. Ogata, and T. Ohjimi, “A new method for the relief of adult phimosis,” Journal of Urology, vol. 153, no. 5, pp. 1607–1609, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
  84. R. Pascotto and E. Giancotti, “The treatment of phimosis in childhood without circumcision: plastic repair of the prepuce,” Minerva Chirurgica, vol. 53, pp. 561–565, 1998. View at: Google Scholar
  85. T. M. Lane and L. M. South, “Lateral preputioplasty for phimosis,” Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 310–312, 1999. View at: Google Scholar
  86. A. K. Saxena, K. Schaarschmidt, A. Reich, and G. H. Willital, “Non-retractile foreskin: a single center 13-year experience,” International Surgery, vol. 85, no. 2, pp. 180–183, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
  87. C. Fischer-Klein and M. Rauchenwald, “Triple incision to treat phimosis in children: an alternative to circumcision?” British Journal of Urology International, vol. 92, no. 4, pp. 459–462, 2003. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  88. A. Diaz and H. I. Kantor, “Dorsal slit. A circumcision alternative,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 619–622, 1971. View at: Google Scholar
  89. G. E. Dean, M. L. Ritchie, and M. R. Zaontz, “La Vega slit procedure for the treatment of phimosis,” Urology, vol. 55, no. 3, pp. 419–421, 2000. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  90. J. Fraser, “The origins of circumcision,” British Medical Journal, vol. 2, no. 2295, pp. 1704–1705, 1904. View at: Google Scholar
  91. A. G. Dampier-Bennett, “The origin of circumcision,” British Medical Journal, vol. 2, no. 2430, pp. 243–244, 1907. View at: Google Scholar
  92. R. P. Terlecki and R. A. Santucci, “Phimosis, adult circumcision and buried penis,” View at: Google Scholar
  93. C. M. Ginsburg and G. H. McCracken, “Urinary tract infections in young infants,” Pediatrics, vol. 69, no. 4, pp. 409–412, 1982. View at: Google Scholar
  94. T. E. Wiswell, F. R. Smith, and J. W. Bass, “Decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male infants,” Pediatrics, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 901–903, 1985. View at: Google Scholar
  95. T. E. Wiswell, “Futher evidence for the decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male infants,” Pediatrics, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 96–99, 1986. View at: Google Scholar
  96. N. Wiliams and L. Kapila, “Complications of circumcision,” British Journal of Surgery, vol. 80, no. 10, pp. 1231–1236, 1993. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  97. G. W. Kaplan, “Complications of circumcision,” Urologic Clinics of North America, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 543–549, 1983. View at: Google Scholar
  98. R. K. Winkelmann, “The erogenous zones: their nerve supply and its significance,” Mayo Clinic Proceedings, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 39–47, 1959. View at: Google Scholar
  99. G. C. Denniston, G. Hill, G. J. Boyle, and T. Senkul, “Circumcision in adults: effect on sexual function,” Urology, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 1267–1268, 2004. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  100. Z. Shen, S. Chen, C. Zhu, Q. Wan, and Z. Chen, “Erectile function evaluation after adult circumcision,” National Journal of Andrology, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 18–19, 2004. View at: Google Scholar
  101. S. Masood, H. R. H. Patel, R. C. Himpson, J. H. Palmer, G. R. Mufti, and M. K. M. Sheriff, “Penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction after circumcision: are we informing men correctly?” Urologia Internationalis, vol. 75, no. 1, pp. 62–66, 2005. View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
  102. M. Milos and D. Macris, Circumcision: Effects Upon Human Sexuality, Encyclopedia of Human Sexuality, Garland Pub., New York, NY, USA, 1994.
  103. J. P. Warren and J. Bigelow, “The case against circumcision,” British Journal of Sexual Medicine, vol. 21, no. 5, p. 68, 1994. View at: Google Scholar
  104. G. Zwang, “Functional and erotic consequences of sexual mutilations,” in Sexual Mutilations: A Human Tragedy New York and London, G. C. Denniston and M. F. Milos, Eds., Plenum Press, 1997. View at: Google Scholar
  105. K. O'Hara and J. O'Hara, “The effect of male circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner,” British Journal of Urology International, vol. 83, no. 1, supplement, pp. 79–84, 1999. View at: Google Scholar

Copyright © 2012 Sukhbir Kaur Shahid. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

More related articles

22959 Views | 4377 Downloads | 3 Citations
 PDF Download Citation Citation
 Download other formatsMore
 Order printed copiesOrder

Related articles

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.