Circumcision requirement in children with phimosis: immediately or elective?

Main Article Content

Serpil Sancar
Elif Altınay Kırlı

Abstract

Objective: Phimosis is define as unretractable prepuce and has two different clinical presentation; pathological (PaP) and physiological. Physiological phimosis (PhP) is a common condition in children that does not require treatment. In our study, we aimed to determine the actual requirement for circumcision in patients with phimosis who were recommended circumcision.


Material and Methods: Children who were offered circumcision due to phimosis between July 2019 and January 2020 and applied to the pediatric surgery and pediatric urology outpatient clinic were included in the study. They were evaluated in terms of referring physicians, genital examination findings and requirement for circumcision.


Results: Between the study dates, 199 patients applied for circumcision due to phimosis.  126 patients are under one year old, 73 patients are over one year old. PhP was present in 194 of the patients and PaP in 5 of them. While PaP is not detected in patients under one year of age, there are 5 patients with PaP over one year of age (2%). There was no requirement for urgent circumcision in any of the patients. Genital examination revealed incidentally undescended testicle in 3 patients and hydrocele in 12 children.


Conclusion: Male genital system examination and pathological findings are not well known by physicians. We think that there is a need for detailed training for physicians regarding PhP and childhood testicle pathologies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
SancarS., & KırlıE. A. (2020). Circumcision requirement in children with phimosis: immediately or elective? . Medical Science and Discovery, 7(2), 425-428. https://doi.org/10.36472/msd.v7i2.357
Section
Research Article
Author Biographies

Serpil Sancar, Bursa City Hospital, Dept of Pediatric Surgery, Bursa, TR

MD, Department of Pediatric Surgery 

Elif Altınay Kırlı, Bursa City Hospital, Dept of Pediatric Urology, Bursa, TR

MD, Department of Pediatric Urology

References

1. Murphy JP, Gatti.JM. Abnormalities of the Urethra, Penis, and Scrotum. In: Coran. Pediatric Surgery. Seventh Edition. Elsevier Inc.2012; 1555-63.

2. Deibert, G.A.: The separation of the prepuce in the human penis. Anat. Rec 1933; 57: 387.

3. Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin. A study of circumcision. Br Med J 1949; ii:1433–7.

4. Dewan PA, Tieu HC, Chieng BS. Phimosis: is circumcision necessary?. J Paediatr Child Health. 1996;32(4):285–9.

5. Øster J. Further fate of the foreskin. Arch Dis Child 1968; 43: 200–3.

6. Rickwood AMK. Medical indications for circumcision. BJU Int 1999; 83(Suppl. 1): 45–51.

7. Golubovic Z, Milanovic D, Vukadinovic V, Rakic I, Perovic S. The conservative treatment of phimosis in boys, British Journal of Urology 1996; 78(5): 786–8.

8. Orsola A, Caffaratti J,. Garat JM. Conservative treatment of phimosis in children using a topical steroid, Urology 2000; 56(2): 307–310.






























































9. Chu CC, Chen KEC, Diau GY. Topical steroidtreatment of phimosis in boys, Journal of Urology 1999; 162(3): 861–3.

10. Shankar KR, Rickwood AMK. The incidence of phimosis in boys. British Journal of Urology International 1999; 84(1): 101–102.

11. Cold CJ, Taylor JR. The prepuce. British Journal of Urology International 1999; vol. 83(1): 34–44.

12. Shahid SK. Phimosis in children. ISRN Urol 2012;2012:707329.

13. Babu R, Harrison SK, Hutton KA. Ballooning of the foreskin and physiological phimosis: is there any objective evidence of obstructed voiding?. BJU Int 2004;94(3):384–7.