Further fate of the foreskin. Incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys.

Øster, Jakob

doi:10.1136/adc.43.228.200

Cited by 247 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…(97,98) Moreover, if uncircumcised men do not perform penile hygiene after sex (rather than rolling over and falling asleep) they increase their risk of STIs. Smegma increases in adolescence, peaking at age 20-40.…”

Section: Frenular Chordeementioning

confidence: 99%

Why circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21^stcentury

Morris

2007

BioEssays

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Circumcision of males represents a surgical “vaccine“ against a wide variety of infections, adverse medical conditions and potentially fatal diseases over their lifetime, and also protects their sexual partners. In experienced hands, this common, inexpensive procedure is very safe, can be pain‐free and can be performed at any age. The benefits vastly outweigh risks. The enormous public health benefits include protection from urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted HIV, HPV, syphilis and chancroid, penile and prostate cancer, phimosis, thrush, and inflammatory dermatoses. In women circumcision of the male partner provides substantial protection from cervical cancer and chlamydia. Circumcision has socio‐sexual benefits and reduces sexual problems with age. It has no adverse effect on penile sensitivity, function, or sensation during sexual arousal. Most women prefer the circumcised penis for appearance, hygiene and sex. Given the convincing epidemiological evidence and biological support, routine circumcision should be highly recommended by all health professionals. BioEssays 29:1147–1158, 2007. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

Section: Frenular Chordeementioning

confidence: 99%

Why circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21^stcentury

Morris

2007

BioEssays

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At birth, there is usually a physiologic phimosis or inability to retract the foreskin because congenital adhesions exist between the prepuce and the glans. By 3 years of age, 90% of foreskins can be retracted, and less than 1% of males have phimosis by 17 years of age (2).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Topical betamethasone and hyaluronidase in the treatment of phimosis in boys: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Nascimento¹,

Pereira²,

Silva³

et al. 2011

Int. braz j urol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose:To compare the efficacy of three different formulations containing Betamethasone Valerate versus placebo in the topical treatment of phimosis. As a secondary goal, we compared the outcomes after 30 and 60 days of treatment. Materials and methods: Two hundred twenty boys aged 3 to 10 years old with clinical diagnosis of phimosis were enrolled. Patients were randomized to one of the following groups: Group 1: Betamethasone Valerate 0.2% plus Hyaluronidase; Group 2: Betamethasone Valerate 0.2%; Group 3: Betamethasone Valerate 0.1% or Group 4: placebo. Parents were instructed to apply the formula twice a day for 60 days and follow-up evaluations were scheduled at 30, 60 and 240 days after the first consultation. Success was defined as complete and easy foreskin retraction. Results: One hundred ninety-five patients were included at our final analysis. Group 1 (N = 54), 2 (N = 51) and 3 (N = 52) had similar success and improvement rates, all treatment groups had higher success rates than placebo(N = 38). After 60 days of treatment, total and partial response rates for Groups 1, 2 and 3 were 54.8% and 40.1%, respectively, while placebo had a success rate of 29%. Success and improvement rates were significantly better in 60 days when compared to 30 days. Conclusions: Betamethasone Valerate 0.1%, 0.2% and 0.2% in combination with Hyaluronidase had equally higher results than placebo in the treatment of phimosis in boys from three to ten years-old. Patients initially with partial or no response can reach complete response after 60 days of treatment.

show abstract

“…In one 8-year study of a cohort of 1948 uncircumcised Danish schoolboys between 6 and 17 years of age, 4% of the boys had phimosis (which prevented the foreskin from being retracted by gentle manipulation) and 2% had "tight prepuce" so that the foreskin could be retracted but with slight difficulty. 16 The only longitudinal study to address this issue in both circumcised and uncircumcised boys followed a birth cohort of 500 New Zealand boys until the age of 8 years; it was noted that the relationship between risks of penile problems and circumcision status varied with the child's age. 20 The majority of these problems were described as penile inflammation and were noted to be relatively minor.…”

Section: Penile Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Various studies suggest that genital hygiene needs to be emphasized as a preventive health topic throughout a patient's lifetime. 16,21,29,30 …”

Section: The Role Of Hygienementioning

confidence: 99%

Circumcision Policy Statement

Lannon¹,

Bailey²,

Fleischman³

et al. 1999

Pediatrics

338

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.ABBREVIATIONS. UTI, urinary tract infection; STD, sexually transmitted disease; NCHS, National Center for Health Statistics; DPNB, dorsal penile nerve block; SCCP, squamous cell carcinoma of the penis; HPV, human papilloma virus; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus.A lthough 1 the exact frequency is unknown, it is estimated that 1.2 million newborn males are circumcised in the United States annually at a cost of between $150 and $270 million. This practice has been advocated for reasons that vary from symbolic ritual to preventive health measure. Until the last half century, there has been limited scientific evidence to support or repudiate the routine practice of male circumcision.Over the past several decades, the American Academy of Pediatrics has published several policy statements on neonatal circumcision of the male infant. [1][2][3] Beginning in its 1971 manual, Standards and Recommendations of Hospital Care of Newborn Infants, and reiterated in the 1975 and 1983 revisions, the Academy concluded that there was no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision.In 1989, because of new research on circumcision status and urinary tract infection (UTI) and sexually transmitted disease (STD)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, the Academy concluded that newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.4 This statement also recommended that when circumcision is considered, the benefits and risks should be explained to the parents and informed consent obtained. Subsequently, a number of medical societies in the developed world have published statements that do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns. [5][6][7] In its position statement, the Australian College of Paediatrics emphasized that in all cases, the medical attendant should avoid exaggeration of either risks or benefits of this procedure. 5Because of the ongoing debate, as well as the publication of new research, it was appropriate to reevaluate the issue of routine neonatal circumcision. This Task Force adopted an evidence-based approach to analyzing the medical literature concerning circumcision. The studies reviewed were obtained through a search of the English language medical literature from 1960 to the present and, additionally, through a search of the bibliographies of the published studies. EPIDEMIOLOGYThe percentage of male infants circumcised va...

show abstract

Further fate of the foreskin. Incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys.

Cited by 247 publications

References 7 publications

Why circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21^stcentury

Why circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21^stcentury

Topical betamethasone and hyaluronidase in the treatment of phimosis in boys: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Circumcision Policy Statement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Further fate of the foreskin. Incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys.

Cited by 247 publications

References 7 publications

Why circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21stcentury

Why circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21stcentury

Topical betamethasone and hyaluronidase in the treatment of phimosis in boys: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Circumcision Policy Statement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

Why circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21^stcentury

Why circumcision is a biomedical imperative for the 21^stcentury