Physiological phimosis-the tincture of time

Authors

  • Soumyodhriti Ghosh Department of Pediatric Surgery, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan
  • Vikram Singh Mujalde Department of Pediatric Surgery, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan
  • Ramendra Shukla Department of Pediatric Surgery, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan
  • Shilpi Gupta Department of Pediatric Surgery, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan
  • Mushahid Ali Department of Pediatric Surgery, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, Rajasthan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20162313

Keywords:

Phimosis, Physiological phimosis, Circumcision

Abstract

Background: Phimosis is one of the commonest presentations in the pediatric surgery outdoor. The main concern has been over avoidance of surgery in physiological phimosis. Different protocols have been proposed from time to time.

Methods: An observational study was carried out in the pediatric surgery outdoor of SMS Medical College Jaipur, Rajasthan, India in 40 children aged 5 years or above who were treated for physiological phimosis by non-operative methods at some stage.

Results: Ninety percent of the patients had resolution of phimosis by conservative means. The remaining patients were having difficulty in retraction, but no complications were identified in any patient.

Conclusions: Phimosis is physiological and management should be restricted to reassurance in all cases that have no evidence of scarring or associated pathologies.

References

McGregor TB, Pike JG, Leonard MP. Pathologic and physiologic phimosis Approach to the phimotic foreskin. Canadian Family Physician. 2007;53(3):445-8.

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

Shahid SK. Phimosis in children. ISRN urology. 2012;2012.

de Oliveira Pileggi F, Vicente YA. Phimotic ring topical corticoid cream (0.1% mometasonefuroate) treatment in children. Journal of pediatric surgery. 2007;42(10):1749-52.

McGregor TB, Pike JG, Leonard MP. Phimosis-a diagnostic dilemma. Can J Urol. 2005;12(2):2598-602.

Zampieri N, Corroppolo M, Zuin V, Bianchi S, Camoglio FS. Phimosis and topical steroids: new clinical findings. Pediatric surgery international. 2007;23(4):331-5.

Breaud J, Guys JM. [Phimosis: medical treatment or circumcision?]. Archives de pediatrie: organeofficiel de la Societefrancaise de pediatrie. 2005;12(9):1424-32.

Palmer LS, Palmer JS. The efficacy of topical betamethasone for treating phimosis: a comparison of two treatment regimens. Urology. 2008;72(1):68-71.

Huang CJ. Problems of the foreskin and glans penis. Clinical Pediatric Emergency Medicine. 2009;10(1):56-9.

Clark LB. Foreskin management. Canadian Family Physician. 2010;56(10):986.

Downloads

Published

2017-01-04

How to Cite

Ghosh, S., Mujalde, V. S., Shukla, R., Gupta, S., & Ali, M. (2017). Physiological phimosis-the tincture of time. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 4(8), 3466–3467. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20162313

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles