Abstract
Confusion in the precise definition and classification of phimosis results in either over or under estimation of the true incidence of this common condition, most of the practitioners ignoring the fact that normal prepuce is passing through a different stages of maturity from infancy to adulthood, and had a variable ranges of preputial hiatus configuration, with a different degrees of the potential balanopreputial space separation. At the meantime, many researchers are not aware about the difference between phimosis and preputial synechiae, describing the normal neonatal synechiae as a physiological phimosis with a resultant misleading in the incidence rates of both conditions, which translated into unnecessary circumcisions in many young boys. The simple fact that the foreskin non retractability should not be a synonymous with phimosis, phimosis is a pathological condition, characterized by hardening, scaring and stenosis of the tip of the foreskin, banning exposure of the glans penis, it could be a congenital anomaly or an acquired pathology; which is commonly inflammatory in nature.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hodges FM. The history of phimosis from antiquity to the present. In: Oenniston GC, Hodges FM, Milos MF, editors. Male and female circumcision: medical, legal and ethical considerations in pediatric practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers; 1999.
Hsu CC. The development of the prepuce. Taiwan Yi Xue Hui Za Zhi. 1983;82:314–20.
Williams N, Chell J, Kapila L. Why are children referred for circumcision? BMJ. 1993;306:28.
Celsus AC. De Medicina 7.25.2. In: Spencer WG, editor and translator. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1938. vol. 3. p. 422.
Dionis P. Cows d’operationsde Chirurgie. Bruxelles: Les Freres t’serstevens; 1708. p. 177.
Hunter J. A treatise on the venereal disease. First American ed. Philadelphia: J Webster; 1818. p. 205–8.
Rickwood AMK, Hemalatha V, Batcup G, Spitz L. Phimosis in boys. Br J Urol. 1980;52:147–50.
Oenniston GC, Hodges FM, Milos MF, editors. Male and female circumcision: medical, legal and ethical considerations in pediatric practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. p. 37–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-585-39937-9_5. ISBN 978-0-306-46131-6.
Hajinasrollah M, Mohitmafi S, Asadian A. Two case reports of unusual phimosis in rhesus monkeys (Macaca Mulatta). J Med Primatol. 2018;48:58. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmp.12367.
Papazoglou LG, Kazakos GM. Surgical conditions of the canine penis and prepuce. Compend Contin Educ Pract Vet. 2002;24(3):204–18.
Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin, a study of circumcision. Br Med J. 1949;2(4642):1433–7, illust.
Oster J. Further fate of the foreskin. Incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys. Arch Dis Child. 1968;43(228):200–3.
Imamura E. Phimosis of infants and young children in Japan. Acta Paediatr Jpn. 1997;39:403–5.
Hsieh TF, Chang CH, Chang SS. Foreskin development before adolescence in 2149 schoolboys. Int J Urol. 2006;13:968–70.
Favorito LA, Balassiano CM, Rosado JP, Cardoso LEM, Costa WS, Sampaio FJB. Structural analysis of the phimotic prepuce in patients with failed topical treatment compared with untreated phimosis. Int Braz J Urol. 2012;38(6):802–8.
Spilsbury K, Semmens JB, Wisniewski ZS, Holman CD. Circumcision for phimosis and other medical indications in Western Australian boys. Med J Aust. 2003;178(4):155–8.
Celis S, Reed F, Murphy F, Adams S, Gillick J, Abdelhafeez AH, Lopez PJ. Balanitis xerotica obliterans in children and adolescents: a literature review and clinical series. J Pediatr Urol. 2014;10(1):34–9.
Kumar P, Deb M, Das K. Preputial adhesions – a misunderstood entity. Indian J Pediatr. 2009;76:829–32.
Reddy CRRM, Devendranath V, Pratap S. Carcinoma of penis - role of phimosis. Urology. 1984;24(1):85–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(84)90398-4.
Johal N, Cuckow P. Phimosis and buried penis. In: Puri P, Höllwarth M, editors. Pediatric surgery, Springer surgery atlas series. Berlin: Springer; 2019.
Bromage SJ, Crump A, Pearce I. Phimosis as a presenting feature of diabetes. BJU Int. 2008;101(3):338–40.
Atilla MK, Dundaroz R, Odabas O, et al. A nonsurgical approach to the treatment of phimosis: local nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory ointment application. J Urol. 1997;158:196–7.
Beaugé M. The causes of adolescent phimosis. Br J Sex Med. 1997;24:26.
Shahid SK. Phimosis in children (Review Article). ISRN Urol. 2012;2012:707329. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/707329.
Santander CB, Campos E, Sánchez A, Marcos L, Díaz I. Púrpura de Schönlein-Henoch con afectación peniana. Caso clínico. Arch Argent Pediatr. 2016;114(4):e249–51.
Paulson DF. Genitourinary cancer, basic and clinical aspects. In: Cancer treatment research, vol. 6. 1st ed; 1982. p. 32. ISBN 90-247-2480-5.
Das S, Tunuguntla HS. Balanitis xerotica obliterans—a review. World J Urol. 2000;18(6):382–7.
Yardley IE, Cosgrove C, Lambert AW. Paediatric preputial pathology: are we circumcising enough? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2007;89:62–5. https://doi.org/10.1308/003588407X160828.
lalock HJ, Vemulakonda V, Ritchey ML, Ribbeck M. Outpatient management of phimosis following newborn circumcision. J Urol. 2003;169(6):2332–6.
Turgut M, Yenilmez A, Can C, Bildirici K, Erkul A, Ozyurek Y. Fibroepithelial polyp of glans penis. Urology. 2005;65:593.
Madsen BS, van den Brule AJC, Jensen HL, Wohlfahrt J, Frisch M. Risk factors for squamous cell carcinoma of the penis—population-based case-control study in Denmark. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2008;17(10):2683.
Velazquez EF, Bock A, Soskin A, Codas R, Arbo M, Cubilla AL. Preputial variability and preferential association of long phimotic foreskins with penile cancer. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003;27(7):994–8.
Douglawi A, Masterson TA. Updates on the epidemiology and risk factors for penile cancer. Transl Androl Urol. 2017;6:785–90.
Ashfield JE, Nickel KR, Siemens DR, Mac Neily AE, Nickel JC. Treatment of phimosis with topical steroids in 194 children. J Urol. 2003;169:1106–8.
Kolehmainen M, Taskinen S, Ossi L. Foreskin surgery. Duodecim. 2010;126:75–83.
Christianakis E. Sutureless prepuceplasty with wound healing by second intention: an alternative surgical approach in children’s phimosis treatment. BMC Urol. 2008;8:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2490-8-6.
Yachia D. Text atlas of penile surgery. London: Informa Healthcare; 2007. ISBN 1-84184-517-5. p. 16.
Goodwin WE. Uncircumcision: a technique for plastic reconstruction of a prepuce after circumcision. J Urol. 1990;144(5):1203–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5347(17)39693-3.
Wåhlin N. “Triple incision plasty”. A convenient procedure for preputial relief. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1992;26(2):107–10.
Christianaki E. Sutureless prepuceplasty with wound healing by second intention: an alternative surgical approach in children’s phimosis treatment. BMC Urol. 2008;8:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2490-8-6.
Kumar R, Pareek R. A holistic approach to phimosis in children. J Ayurveda Integr Med Sci. 2018;1:66–9. https://doi.org/10.21760/jaims.v3i01.11641.
Ying H, Zhou X-H. Balloon dilation treatment of phimosis in boys. Chin Med J. 1991;104(6):491–3.
Cicia S, Florio G. Postectomy for phimosis: 5-year-experience. Chir Ital. 2000;52(6):733–6.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fahmy, M.A.B. (2020). Phimosis. In: Normal and Abnormal Prepuce. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37621-5_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37621-5_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-37620-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-37621-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)