World Journal of Urology

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 187–190 | Cite as

Topical steroid application versus circumcision in pediatric patients with phimosis: a prospective randomized placebo controlled clinical trial

  • Ciro Esposito
  • Antonella Centonze
  • Francesca Alicchio
  • Antonio Savanelli
  • Alessandro Settimi
Original Article

Abstract

Objectives

Topical steroids have been advocated as an effective alternative treatment to circumcision in boys with phimosis. We evaluated the effectiveness of topical steroid therapy compared to a placebo neutral cream in 240 patients with phimosis.

Methods

A prospective study was carried out over a 24-months period, on an out-patient basis on two groups of patients with phimosis. One-hundred twenty patients applied a steroid cream twice a day for 4 weeks, and another group of 120 pts used a placebo cream twice a day for 4 weeks. Patients were assigned to either group by a computer-generated random choice.

Results

All patients in our series completed the two treatment periods without interruption. At a median follow-up of 20 months (6–30 months) therapeutic success was obtained in 43.75% (99/240) of cases, independently of the protocol. In particular, therapeutic success was obtained in 65.8% (79/120) of cases in the steroids group and in 16.6% (20/120) of cases in the placebo group, the difference being statistically significant (P < 0.0001, Mann–Withney test).

Conclusion

Our study shows that topical steroids represent a good alternative to surgery in case of phimosis. Steroid therapy using monometasone furoate 0.1% in our series gave better results that placebo with an overall efficacy of 65.8%. In patients where a phimotic ring persist after steroid therapy, circumcision is mandatory.

Keywords

Phimosis Steroids Circumcision Children 

References

  1. 1.
    Ashfield JE, Nickel KR, Siemens DR, MacNeily AE, Nickel JC (2003) Treatment of phimosis with topical steroids in 194 children. J Urol 169:1106–1110PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Elmore JM, Baker LA, Snodgrass WT (2002) Topical steroid therapy as an alternative to circumcision for phimosis younger than 3 years. J Urol 168:1746–1750PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kayaba H, Tamura H, Kitajima S, Fujiwara Y, Kato T, Kato T (1996) Analysis of shape and retractability of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys. J Urol 156:1813–1815PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Atilla MK, Dundaro R, Odabas O, Ozturk H, Akin R, Gokcay E (1997) A nonsurgical approach to the treatment of phimosis: local nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory ointment application. J Urol 158:196–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Golubovic Z, Milanovic D, Vukadinovic V, Rakic I, Perovic S (1996) The conservative treatment of phimosis in boys. Br J Urol 78:786–790PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kikiros CS, Beasley SW, Woodward AA (1993) The response of phimosis to local steroid application. Pediatr Surg Int 8:329–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chu CC, Chen KC, Diau GY (1999) Topical steroid treatment of phimosis in boys. J Urol 162:861–864PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Monsour MA, Rabinovitch HH, Dean GE (1999) Medical management of phimosis in children: our experience with topical steroids. J Urol 162:1162–1167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Orsola A, Caffaratti J, Garat JM (2000) Conservative treatment of phimosis in children using a topical steroid. Urology 56:307–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kragballe K (1989) Topical corticosteroids: mechanisms of action. Acta Derm Venereol 151:7–10Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ng WT, Fan N, Wong CK, Leung SL, Yuen KS, Sze YS (2001) Treatment of childhood phimosis with a moderately potent topical steroid. ANZ J Surg 71:541–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wright JE (1994) The treatment of childhood phimosis with topical steroid. Aust N Z J Surg 64:327–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    To T, Agha M, Dick PT, Feldman W (1998) Cohort study on circumcision of newborn boys and subsequent risk of urinarytract infection. Lancet 352:1813–1817PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cuckow PM (1998) Circumcision. In: Stringer MD, Oldham KT, Mouriquand P, Howard ER (eds) Pediatric surgery and urology: long term outcomes. W. B. Saunders Co Ltd, London, pp 616–620Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Krafchik BR (1995) The use of topical steroids in children. Semin Dermatol 14:70–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    MacKie RM (2004) Drug eruptions. In: Lay G, Ragon FG (eds) Clinical dermatology, Oxford University Press, New York, pp 300–310Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Perry RJ, Findlay CA, Donaldson MD (2002) Cushing’s syndrome, growth impairment, and occult adrenal suppression associated with intranasal steroids. Arch Dis Child 87:45–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zheng PS, Lavker RM, Lehmann P, Kligman AM (1984) Morphologic investigations on the rebound phenomenon after corticosteroid-induced atrophy in human skin. J Invest Dermatol 82:345–347PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ciro Esposito
    • 1
    • 3
  • Antonella Centonze
    • 1
  • Francesca Alicchio
    • 2
  • Antonio Savanelli
    • 2
  • Alessandro Settimi
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, Chair of Pediatric SurgeryMagna Graecia UniversityCatanzaroItaly
  2. 2.Department of PediatricsFederico II UniversityNaplesItaly
  3. 3.NaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations