World Journal of Pediatrics

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 312–315 | Cite as

Foreskin development in 10 421 Chinese boys aged 0–18 years

  • Chao Yang
  • Xing Liu
  • Guang-Hui WeiEmail author



Few studies on foreskin development and the practice of circumcision have been done in Chinese boys. This study aimed to determine the natural development process of foreskin in children.


A total of 10 421 boys aged 0 to 18 years were studied. The condition of foreskin was classified into type I (phimosis), type II (partial phimosis), type III (adhesion of prepuce), type IV (normal), and type V (circumcised). Other abnormalities of the genitalia were also determined.


The incidence of a completely retractile foreskin increased from 0% at birth to 42.26% in adolescence; however, the phimosis rate decreased with age from 99.7% to 6.81%. Other abnormalities included web penis, concealed penis, cryptorchidism, hydrocele, micropenis, inguinal hernia, and hypospadias.


Incomplete separation of foreskin is common in children. Since it is a natural phenomenon to approach the adult condition until puberty, circumcision should be performed with cautions in children.

Key words

abnormalities circumcision external genitalia foreskin 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lerman SE, Liao JC. Neonatal circumcision. Pediatr Clin North Am 2001;48:1539–1557.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Elder JS. Congenital anomalies of the genitalia. In: Walsh PC, Vaughan ED, Retik AB, et al (eds). Campbell’s urology, 7th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1998: 2120–2143.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rajfer JS. Congenital anomalies of the testis and scrotum. In: Walsh PC, Vaughan ED, Retik AB, et al (eds). Campbell’s urology, 7th ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1998: 2172–2192.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin: a study of circumcision. Br Med J 1949;2:1433–1437.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kayaba H, Tamura H, Kitajima S, Fujiwara Y, Kato T, Kato T. Analysis of shape and retractability of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys. J Urol 1996;156:1813–1815.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oster J. Further fate of the foreskin. Incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys. Arch Dis Child 1968;43:200–203.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Concepción JC, Fernández PG, Aránegui AM, Rodríguez MG, Casacó BM. The need of circumcision or prepuce dilation. A study with 1200 boys. Arch Esp Urol 2008;61:699–704.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anne-Marie Houle. Circumcision for all: the pro side. Can Urol Assoc J 2007;1:398–400.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Macneily AE. Routine circumcision: the opposing view. Can Urol Assoc J 2007;1:395–397.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hirji H, Charlton R, Sarmah S. Male circumcision: a review of the evidence. JMHG 2005;2:21–30.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Van Howe RS. Human papillomavirus and circumcision: a meta-analysis. J Infect 2007;54:490–496.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Christakis DA, Harvey E, Zerr DM, Feudtner C, Wright JA, Connell FA. A trade-off analysis of routine newborn circumcision. Pediatrics 2000;105:246–249.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shankar KR, Rickwood AM. The incidence of phimosis in boys. BJU Int 1999;84:101–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    State Council AIDS working Committee Office and UN Theme Group on HIV/AIDS in China. A joint assessment of HIV/AIDS prevention, treatment and care in China. (accessed February 2009)
  15. 15.
    World Health Organization, 2008. Report on the global AIDS epidemic. (accessed August 20, 2008).
  16. 16.
    McCoombe SG, Short RV. Potential HIV-1 target cells in the human penis. AIDS 2006;20:1491–1495.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Patterson BK, Landay A, Siegel JN, Flener Z, Pessis D, Chaviano A, et al. Susceptibility to human immunodefi ciency virus-1 infection of human foreskin and cervical tissue grown in explant culture. Am J Pathol 2002;161:867–873.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marozsan AJ, Moore DM, Lobritz MA, Fraundorf E, Abraha A, Reeves JD, et al. Differences in the fi tness of two diverse wild-type human immunodefi ciency virus type 1 isolates are related to the effi ciency of cell binding and entry. J Virol 2005;79:7121–7134.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    John Radcliffe Hospital Cryptorchidism Study Group. Cryptorchidism: a prospective study of 7500 consecutive male births, 1984–8. John Radcliffe Hospital Cryptorchidism Study Group. Arch Dis Child 1992;67:892–899.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ghirri P, Ciulli C, Vuerich M, Cuttano A, Faraoni M, Guerrini L, et al. Incidence at birth and natural history of cryptorchidism: a study of 10,730 consecutive male infants. J Endocrinol Invest 2002;25:709–715.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Song XF, Wei GH, Liu X, Zhang DY, Chen X, Deng YJ. Effects of diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) on INSL3 mRNA expression by Leydig cells derived from mouse embryos and in newborn mice. J Int Med Res 2008;36:512–521.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hosie S, Loff S, Witt K, Niessen K, Waag KL. Is there a correlation between organochlorine compounds and undescended testes? Eur J Pediatr Surg 2000;10:304–309.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Damgaard IN, Skakkebaek NE, Toppari J, Virtanen HE, Shen H, Schramm KW, et al. Persistent pesticides in human breast milk and cryptorchidism. Environ Health Perspect 2006;114:1133–1138.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Children's Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine and Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pediatric OncologyChongqing Medical UniversityChongqingChina
  2. 2.Department of Pediatric Urology, Children’s HospitalChongqing Medical UniversityChongqingChina
  3. 3.ChongqingChina

Personalised recommendations