Advertisement

Pediatric Nephrology

, Volume 21, Issue 8, pp 1127–1130 | Cite as

Topical hydrocortisone and physiotherapy for nonretractile physiologic phimosis in infants

  • Jung Won Lee
  • Su Jin Cho
  • Eun Ae Park
  • Seung Joo LeeEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

The effect of hydrocortisone (HC), the steroid of lowest potency, and physiotherapy (PT) on non-retractile physiologic phimosis (PP) and the reduction of subsequent recurrent UTI was evaluated in male infants with UTI. Seventy-eight male infants with febrile UTI and nonretractile PP were prospectively randomized into HC (Plancol, n=39) and control (Vaseline, n=39) groups. Topical application of HC as a thin film around the preputial margin twice a day for four weeks with PT was instructed. The response rate in the HC group was 89.7% (35/39), which was significantly higher than the rate (20.5%; 8/39) in the control group (P<0.05). In the HC group, the response rate was much higher (96.1%) in the subgroup with PT than in the group without PT. Most of the response (88.5%) was observed within two weeks. During the following year, the recurrent rate of UTI was 7.1% (2/28) in the infants with retractile prepuces, which was significantly less than than the rate (29.6%; 8/27) in infants with nonretractile prepuces (P<0.05). In conclusion, topical HC and PT for 2–4 weeks proved to be a simple, safe and effective treatment for nonretractile PP in infants with UTI, and this procedure was beneficial in reducing recurrent UTI.

Keywords

Male infants Lowest potency steroid cream Retractile prepuce Recurrent UTI 

References

  1. 1.
    Oster J (1968) Further fate of the foreskin: Incidence of prepucial adhesions, phimosis and smegma among Danish school boys. Arch Dis Child 43:200–203PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wiswell TE, Enzenauer RW, Holton ME, Comish JD, Hankins CT (1987) Declining frequency of circumcision: implication for changes in the absolute incidence and male to female sex ratio of urinary tract infection in early infancy. Pediatrics 79:338–342PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hiraoka M, Tsukahara H, Ohshima Y, Mayumi M (2002) Meatus tightly covered by the prepuce is associated with urinary infection. Pediatr Int 44:658–662PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wiswell TE, Roscelli JD (1986) Corroborative evidence for the decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male infants. Pediatrics 78:96–99PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herzog LW (1989) Urinary tract infection and circumcision: a case control study. Am J Dis Child 143:348–350Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schon EJ, Colby CJ, Ray GT (2000) Newborn circumcision decrease incidence and costs of urinary tract infections during the first year of life. Pediatrics 105:789–793CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    To T, Agha M, Dick PT, Feldman W (1998) Cohort study on circumcision of newborn boys and subsequent risk of urinary tract infection. Lancet 352:1813–1816PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Singh-Grewal D, Macdessi J, Craig J (2005) Circumcision for the prevention of urinary tract infection in boys: a systemic review of randomized trials and observational studies. Arch Dis Child 90:853–858PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    American Academy of Pediatrics (1999) Task force on circumcision. Circumcision policy statement. Pediatrics 103:686–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schon EJ, Wiswell TE, Moses S (2000) New policy on circumcision—causes for concern. Pediatrics 105:620–623Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jorgensen ET, Svensson A (1993) The treatment of phimosis in boys with a potent topical steroid (clobetasol propionate 0.05%) cream. Acta Derm Venereol 73:55–56Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kikiros CS, Beasley SW, Woodward AA (1993) The response of phimosis to local steroid application. Pediatr Surg Int 8:329–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wright JE (1994) The treatment of childhood phimosis with topical steroid. Aust NZJ Surg 64:327–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lindhagen T (1996) Topical clobetasol propionate compared with placebo in the treatment of unretractable foreskin. Eur J Surg 162:969–972PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Golubovic Z, Milanovic D, Vukadinovic V, Rakic I, Perovic S (1996) The conservative treatment of phimosis in boys. Br J Urol 78:786–788PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Monsour MA, Rabinovitch HH, Dean GE (1999) Medical management of phimosis in children: our experience with topical steroids. J Urol 162:1162–1164PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chu CC, Chen KC, Diau GY (1999) Topical steroid treatment of phimosis in boys. J Urol 162:861–863Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lund L, Wai KH, Mui LM, Yeung CK (2000) Effect of topical steroid on non-retractile prepubertal foreskin by a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Scand J Urol Nephrol 34:267–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Orsola A, Caffaratti J, Garat JM (2000) Conservative treatment of phimosis in children using a topical steroid. Urology 56:307–310PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Webster TM, Leonard MP (2002) Topical steroid therapy for phimosis. Can J Urol 9:1492–1495PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ashfield JE, Nickel KR, Siemens DR, McNeily AE (2003) Treatment of phimosis with topical steroid in 194 children. J Urol 169:1106–1108PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lund L, Wai KH, Mui LM, Yeung CK (2005) An 18-month follow-up study after randomized treatment of phimosis in boys with topical steroid versus placebo. Scan J Urol Nephrol 39:78–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Yang SS, Tsai YC, Wu CC, Liu SP, Wang CC (2005) Highly potent and moderately potent topical steroids are effective in treating phimosis: a prospective randomized study. J Urol 173:1361–1363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Elmore JM, Baker LA, Snodgrass WT (2002) Topical steroid therapy as an alternative to circumcision for phimosis in boys younger than 3 years. J Urol 168:1746–1747PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Hammarstrom S, Hamburg M, Duell EA, Stawiski MA, Anderson TF, Vorhees JJ (1977) Glucocorticoid in inflammatory skin disease reduces arachdonic and hydroxyeicosatetranoic acids. Science 197:994–996PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lewis GP, Piper PJ (1975) Inhibition of release of prostaglandin as an explanation of some of the actions of anti-inflammatory corticosteroids. Nature 254:308–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gavan N, Maibach H (1997) Effect of topical corticosteroids on the activity of superoxide dismutase in human skin in vitro. Skin Pharmacol 10:309–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van Howe RS (1998) Cost effective treatment of phimosis. Pediatrics 102:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Berdeu D, Sauze L, Ha-Vinh P, Blum-Boisgard C (2001) Cost effectiveness analysis of treatments for phimosis: a comparison of surgical and medical approachs and their economic effects. Br J Urol 87:239–241Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wiswell TE, Geschike DW (1989) Risks from circumcision during the first months of life compared with those for uncircumcised boys. Pediatrics 83:1011–1015PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cooper GG, Thomson GJ, Raine PA (1983) Therapeutic retraction of the foreskin in childhood. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 286:186–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IPNA 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jung Won Lee
    • 1
  • Su Jin Cho
    • 2
  • Eun Ae Park
    • 2
  • Seung Joo Lee
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of PediatricsSeoul Municipal Dongbu HospitalSeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Department of PediatricsEwha Womans University Mokdong HospitalSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations