Phimosis in children

Czech version

Authors: J. Sedláček; R. Kočvara
Authors‘ workplace: Urologická klinika 1. LF UK a VFN Praha
Published in: Urol List 2007; 5(1): 34-36

Overview

Most physicians involved in preventive care of child patients encounter problems with foreskin relatively often. The approach to treatment of child fimosis is based on natural development of prepucium and in most cases the difficulties with pulling back the foreskin may be resolved conservatively by applying local steroid treatment. Circumcision remains standard treatment of secondary cicatricial fimosis and balanitis xerotica obliterans. Operation may be indicated for cases of unsuccessful steroid treatment, recurrence of urinal tract infections or when removal of foreskin is requested by the parents.

Key words:
phimosis, local steroid treatment, circumcision

Sources

1. Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin: A study of circumcision. Br Med J; 1949; 2:1433-1437.

2. Oster J. Further fate of the foreskin: Incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys. Arch Dis Child 1968; 43: 200.

3. Kregballe K. Topical corticosteroids: Mechanism of action. Acta Derm Venereol 1989; 69: 7-10.

4. Zheng P, Laver R, Lehman P, Kligman A. Morphologic investigations on the rebound phenomenon after corticosteroid-induced atrophy in the human skin. J Invest Dermatol 1984; 82: 345-352.

5. Golubovic Z, Milanovi D, Vukadinovic V et al. The conservative treatment of phimosis in boys. Br J Urol 1996; 78(5): 786-788.

6. Elmor JM. Topical steroid therapy as an alternative to circumcision for phimosis in boys younger than 3 years. J Urol 2002; 168: 1746-1747.

7. Meulen PH. A conservative treatment of fimosis in boys. Eur Urol 2001; 40: 196-200.

8. Monsour MA. Medical management of phimosis in children: our expirience with topical steroids. J Urol 1999; 162: 1162-1164.

9. Chen CKC. Topical steroid treatment of phimosis in boys. J Urol 1999; 162: 861-863.

10. Thompson HC, King LR, Knox E, Keanes SB. Report of the ad hoc task force on circumcision. Pediatrics 1975; 56: 610.

11. Ginsburg CM, McCracken GH jr. Urinary tract infections in young infants. Pediatrics 1982; 69: 409.

12. Wiswell TE. The prepuce, urinary tract infections, and the consequences. Pediatrics 2000; 106: 860.

13. Hiraoka M. Meatus tightly covered by the prepuce is associated with urinary tract infection. Pediatr Int 2002; 44: 658-662.

14. Steadman B, Ellsworth P. To cirk or not to cirk: Indication, risks and alternatives to circumcision in the pediatric population with phimosis. Urol Nurs 2006; 26(3): 181-194.

15. Ross JH. Circumcision: Pro and con. In: Elder JS (ed). Pediatric Urology for the General Urologist. New York: Igaku-Shoin 1996: 49.

16. Christakis DA, Harvey E, Zerr DM et al. A trade-off analysis of routine newborn circumcision. Pediatrics 2000; 105: 246.

17. Steadman B, Ellsworth P. To circ or not to circ: indications, risks, and alternatives to circumcision in the pediatric population with phimosis. Urol Nurs 2006; 26(3): 181-194.

Labels

Paediatric urologist Urology

Vesicoureteric reflux

Sexual diferentiation disorders

Obstructive uropathy in infancy

Hypospadias - optimum methods of treatment

Urolithiasis in child patients - have modern times brought new options?

Cryptorchidism - what is the best timing and method of treatment?

Varicocele - what is the best timing and method of treatment?

Lower urinary tract dysfunction in children

Enuresis nocturna

Article was published in

Urological Journal

2007 Issue 1