Skip to main content

Phimosis and Paraphimosis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Congenital Anomalies of the Penis

Abstract

The foreskin is usually still fused with the glans at birth. As childhood progresses, they gradually separate. There are different reports and a lot of debates about the age at which the foreskin can be retracted safely as there is no consensus about the time of complete separation between the glans and the inner prepuce. The other problem is the inability of many physicians to distinguish between physiological phimosis, pathological phimosis and paraphimosis, and their misdiagnosis that leads to unnecessary parents’ anxiety and over-referrals to urologists for circumcision or consultation. Of these cases referred to a urology clinic, in one study, it was detected that only 8–14.4 % had a “true” phimosis which necessitate surgical intervention.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. TKumar P, Deb M, Das K. Preputial adhesions–a misunderstood entity.Indian. J Pediatr. 2009;76(8):829–32.

    Google Scholar 

  2. McGregor TB, Pike JG, Leonard MP. Phimosis—a diagnostic dilemma? Can. J Urol. 2005;12(2):2598–602.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kikiros CS, Beasley SW, Woodward AA. The response of phimosis to local steroid application. Pediatr Surg Int. 1993;8(4):329–32. doi:10.1007/BF00173357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. McGregor TB, Pike JG, Leonard MP. Pathologic and physiologic phimosis: approach to the phimotic foreskin. Can Fam Physician. 2007;53(3):445–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Sneppen I, Thorup J. Foreskin morbidity in uncircumcised males. Pediatrics. 2016;137(5). doi: 10.1542/peds.2015-4340.

  6. Shankar KR, Rickwood AM. The incidence of phimosis in boys. BJU Int. 1999;84(1):101–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bromage SJ, Crump A, Pearce I. Phimosis as a presenting feature of diabetes. BJU Int. 2008;101(3):338–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. He Y, Zhou XH. Balloon dilation treatment of phimosis in boys. Report of 512 cases. Chin Med J (Engl). 1991;104(6):491–3.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Golubovic Z, Milanovic D, Vukadinovic V, et al. The conservative treatment of phimosis in boys. BJU Int. 1996;78:786.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Kessler CS, Bauml J. Non-traumatic urologic emergencies in men: a clinical review. West J Emerg Med. 2009;10(4):281–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Little B, White M. Treatment options for paraphimosis. Int J Clin Pract. 2005;59(5):591–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Further Reading

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fahmy, M. (2017). Phimosis and Paraphimosis. In: Congenital Anomalies of the Penis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43310-3_38

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43310-3_38

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43309-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43310-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics