Phimosis in children: an unfinished story
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52786/isu.a.95Keywords:
Phimosis, children, physiologic, pathologic, corticosteroids, circumcisionAbstract
Phimosis is a condition in which prepuce cannot be fully retracted behind the glans of the penis, which is common in boys and can occur at any age. Physiologic phimosis is a normal condition that occurs at birth and generally resolves with age as a child grows, which may take until adolescence to be completely retracted. In most cases, external hygiene is adequate care. Whereas pathologic phimosis is a condition in which the foreskin cannot be retracted at an age when retraction normally should be possible or when a previously retractable foreskin becomes non-retractable. This type of phimosis usually occurs in older children and possible ballooning of the foreskin when voiding. It can result from lichen sclerosus, recurrent episodes of balanitis or balanoposthitis, and inappropriate retraction of the foreskin. Topical corticosteroids can loosen the tissues in non-scarred prepuce in approximately 80% of cases. Phimosis can cause complications such as obstructed voiding, urinary tract infection, paraphimosis, and penile cancer. Various classifications; Kikiros, Kayaba, and Sookpotarom, have been developed to assess the severity of phimosis, making it easier to understand and compare the condition across different patients. If a patient experiences complication from phimosis that do not resolve with topical steroids, circumcision should be considered as an option. While pediatric circumcision has been shown to offer benefits in reducing the risk of urinary tract infections, HIV, sexually transmitted diseases, and penile cancer, routine neonatal circumcision is not recommended. Newborn circumcision while controversial is a familial decision and should be based on informed consent.
References
Zaontz MR, Long CJ. Penile Anomalies and Circumcision. In: Mattei P, Editor. Fundamenal of Pediatric Surgery. Philadelphia: Springer, Cham; 2022. p. 933-56.
McGregor TB, Pike JG, Leonard MP. Pathologic and physiologic phimosis: approach to the phimotic foreskin. Can Fam Physician 2007;53:445-8.
Imsamran W, Pattatang A, Supaattagorn P, Chiawiriyabunya I, Namthaisong K, Wongsena M, et al. Cancer in Thailand Vol. IX, 2013-2015. Bangkok: New Thammada Press (Thailand); 2018.
Drake T, Rustom J, Davies M. Phimosis in childhood. BMJ 2013;346:f3678.
Manekar AA, Janjala N, Sahoo SK, Tripathy BB, Mohanty MK. Phimosis - Are we on right track? Afr J Paediatr Surg 2022;19:199-202.
Hayashi Y, Kojima Y, Mizuno K, Kohri K. Prepuce: phimosis, paraphimosis, and circumcision. ScientificWorldJournal 2011;11:289-301.
Sungwalprakaisang W, Swatesutipun V, Tangpaitoon T. Prevalence of phimosis, benefit of manual foreskin retraction, and parent’s perception about phimosis in Thai Kindergarten and primary school aged boys. J Med Assoc Thai 2022;105:188-93.
Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin. Nurs Mirror Midwives J 1950;92:59;passim.
Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin, a study of circumcision. Br Med J 1949;2:1433-7, illust.
Radmayr C, Bogaert G, Bujons A, Burgu B, Cast- agnetti M, ‘t Hoen F, et al. Phimosis and other abnormalities of penile skin. EAU Guideline on Pediatric Urology [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 August 1]:10-13. Avaliable from: https://d56bo- chluxqnz.cloudfront.net/documents/full-guideline/ EAU-Guidelines-on-Paediatric-Urology-2024.pdf
Aziz Filho AM, de Azevedo LMS, Rochael MC, de Jesus LE. Frequency of lichen sclerosus in children presenting with phimosis: A systematic histological study. J Pediatr Urol 2022;18:529 e1-6.
Ghidini F, Virgone C, Pulvirenti R, Trovalusci E, Gamba P. Could a careful clinical examination distinguish physiologic phimosis from balanitis xerotica obliterans in children? Eur J Pediatr 2021; 180:591-5.
Kikiros CS, Beasley SW, Woodward AA. The re- sponse of phimosis to local steroid application. Pediatr Surg Int 1993;8:329-32.
Kayaba H, Tamura H, Kitajima S, Fujiwara Y, Kato T, Kato T. Analysis of shape and retractability of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys. J Urol 1996;156:1813-5.
Sookpotarom P, Asawutmangkul C, Srinithiwat B,Leethochawalit S, Vejchapipat P. Is half strength of 0.05 % betamethasone valerate cream still effective in the treatment of phimosis in young children? Pediatr Surg Int Apr 2013;29:393-6.
Jørgensen ET, Svensson A. The treatment of phimosis in boys, with a potent topical steroid (clobetasol propionate 0.05%) cream. Acta Derm Venereol 1993; 73:55-6.
Liu J, Yang J, Chen Y, Cheng S, Xia C, Deng T. Is steroids therapy effective in treating phimosis? A meta-analysis. Int Urol Nephrol 2016;48:335-42.
Moreno G, Ramirez C, Corbalan J, Penaloza B, Marambio MM, Pantoja T. Topical corticosteroids for treating phimosis in boys. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024;1:CD008973.
Basak R. Phimosis. American Academy of Pediatrics [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 August 20]; 2023. Avaliable from: https://publications.aap.org/ pediatriccare/article-abstract/doi/10.1542/aap.ppc- qr.396213/100/Phimosis?redirectedFrom=fulltext
Hengge UR, Ruzicka T, Schwartz RA, Cork MJ. Adverse effects of topical glucocorticosteroids. J Am Acad Dermatol 2006;54:1-15;quiz 16-8.
Zhou G, Yin J, Sun J, Zhu W, Jin S, Li SL. The efficacy of topical 0.1% mometasone furoate for treating symptomatic severe phimosis: A comparison of two treatment regimens. Front Pediatr 2022;10:1025899.
Makhija D, Shah H, Tiwari C, Dwiwedi P, Gandhi S. Outcome of topical steroid application in children with non-retractile prepuce. Dev Period Med 2018;22:71-4.
Moreno G, Corbalan J, Penaloza B, Pantoja T. Topical corticosteroids for treating phimosis in boys. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;2014:CD008973.
Letendre J, Barrieras D, Franc-Guimond J, Abdo A, Houle AM. Topical triamcinolone for persistent phimosis. J Urol 2009;182:1759-63.
Korting HC, Unholzer A, Schafer-Korting M, Tausch I, Gassmueller J, Nietsch KH. Different skin thinning potential of equipotent medium-strength glucocorticoids. Skin Pharmacol Appl Skin Physiol 2002;15:85-91.
Delforno C, Holt PJ, Marks R. Corticosteroid effect on epidermal cell size. Br J Dermatol 1978;98:619-23.
Berdeu D, Sauze L, Ha-Vinh P, Blum-Boisgard C. Cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for phimosis: a comparison of surgical and medicinal approaches and their economic effect. BJU Int 2001;87:239-44.
American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Male circumcision. Pediatrics 2012;130:e756-85.
Wallerstein E. Circumcision. The uniquely American medical enigma. Urol Clin North Am 1985;12: 123-32.
Morris BJ, Wiswell TE. Circumcision and lifetime risk of urinary tract infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Urol 2013;189:2118-24.
World Health Organization U. New data on male circumcision and HIV prevention: policy and program implications. presented at: WHO/UNAIDS technical consultation on male circumcision and HIV prevention: Research Implications for Policy and Programming 6-8 March 2007 2007; Montreux. Session Conclusion and recommendation. Avaliable from: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/43751/9789241595988_eng.pdf
Dean GE, Ritchie ML, Zaontz MR. La Vega slit procedure for the treatment of phimosis. Urology 2000;55:419-21.
Azmi YA, Yogiswara N, Renaldo J. The efficacy of tissue glue in pediatric circumcision wound approximation: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr Urol 2022;18:327-33.
Mahawong P. Alternative Treatmnents to Circumcision for Phimosis in Children. Thai J Urol 2010; 31:79-87.
Krill AJ, Palmer LS, Palmer JS. Complications of circumcision. ScientificWorldJournal 2011;11:2458-68.
Yilmaz E, Batislam E, Basar MM, Basar H. Psychological trauma of circumcision in the phallic period could be avoided by using topical steroids. Int J Urol 2003;10:651-6.
Orsola A, Caffaratti J, Garat JM. Conservative treatment of phimosis in children using a topical steroid. Urology 2000;56:307-10.
Lund L, Wai KH, Mui LM, Yeung CK. Effect of topical steroid on non-retractile prepubertal foreskin by a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2000;34:267-9.
Reddy S, Jain V, Dubey M, Deshpande P, Singal AK. Local steroid therapy as the first-line treatment for boys with symptomatic phimosis - a long-term prospective study. Acta Paediatr 2012;101:e130-3.
Lee CH, Lee SD. Effect of topical steroid (0.05% clobetasol propionate) treatment in children with severe phimosis. Korean J Urol 2013;54:624-30.
Chamberlin JD, Dorgalli C, Abdelhalim A, Davis-Dao CA, Chalmers CL, Kelly MS, et al. Randomized open-label trial comparing topical prescription triamcinolone to over-the-counter hydrocortisone for the treatment of phimosis. J Pediatr Urol 2019;15:388e1-5.
Chung JW, Kim HT, Jang SW, Ha YS, Kim TH, Kwon TG, Lee JN. Comparison of the Effect of Steroids on the Treatment of Phimosis according to the Steroid Potencies. Urol J. 2021;18:652-7.
Zhou G, Jiang M, Yang Z, Xu W, Li S. Efficacy of topical steroid treatment in children with severe phimosis in China: A long-term single centre prospective study. J Paediatr Child Health 2021;57:1960-5.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Insight Urology

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.