Advertisement

Embryology of the Penis

  • R. Guy HudsonEmail author
  • Michele Ebbers
Chapter

Abstract

Since the penis and its accouterments develop over time as a fusing of the urogenital membrane, it is particularly predisposed to congenital anomalies. Thus, understanding the development of the male genitalia is key to identifying congenital anomalies – many of which are grounds for deferring newborn circumcision.

Keywords

Male Genitalia Male Phenotype Glans Penis Urethral Plate Penile Shaft 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Greenfield A, Koopman P. SRY and mammalian sex determination. Curr Top Dev Biol. 1996;34:1–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baskin LS. Hypospadias and urethral development. J Urol. 2000;163:951–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kurzrock EA, Baskin LS, Cunha GR. Ontogeny of the male urethra: theory of endodermal differentiation. Differentiation. 1999;64:115–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Felix W. The development of the urogenital organs. In: Keibel F, Mall FP, editors. Manual of human embryology, vol. 2. Philadelphia/London: Lippincott; 1912.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Siddiqi MAH. The development of the penile urethra and the homology of Cowper’s gland of male spermophile (Citellus tridecemlineatus) with a note on the prostatic urtricle. J Anat (Lond). 1937;72:109–15.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wood Jones F. The development and malformation of the glans and prepuce. Br Med J. 1910;1(2559):137–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barnstein NJ, Mossman HW. The origin of the penile urethra and bulbo-urethral glands with particular reference to the red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus). Anat Rec. 1938;72:67–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Williams DI. The development and abnormalities of the penile urethra. Acta Anat. 1952;15:176–87.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Martin RD. Primate origins and evolution: a phylogenic reconstruction. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin. Br Med J. 1949;2:1433–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parkash S, Raguram R, Venkatesan K, et al. Sub-preputial wetness – it’s nature. Ann Nat Med Sci (India). 1982;18(3):109–12.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lee-Huang S, Huang PL, Sun Y, et al. Lysozyme and RHases as anti-HIV components in beta-core ­preparations of human chorionic gonadotropin. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1999;96(6):2678–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    DeWitte L, Nabotov A, Pion M, et al. Langerin is a natural barrier to HIV-1 transmission by langerhans cells. Nat Med. 2007;13:367–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hsieh TF, Chang CH, Chang SS. Foreskin development before adolescence in 2149 schoolboys. Int J Urol. 2006;13:968–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kayaba H, Tamura H, Kitajima S, et al. Analysis of shape and retractability of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys. J Urol. 1996;156:1813–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oster J. Further fate of the foreskin. Arch Dis Child. 1968;43:200.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cold CJ, Taylor JR. The prepuce. Br J Urol. 1999;83 Suppl 1:34–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pediatric Urologic SurgerySwedish Medical CenterSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations