The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.

Phimosis of infants and young children in Japan

EIICHI IMAMURA MD

Corresponding Author

Department of Pediatrics, International Medical Center of Japan, Tokyo, Japan

3‐19‐16 Kamiikedai, Otaku, Tokyo, Japan
Search for more papers by this author
First published: 19 January 2011
Cited by: 10

Abstract

The prepuce and glans was examined in 4521 healthy infants and young children with a birthweight over 2600 g. There were 3238 infants aged 1–12 months and 1283 children aged 3 years. There is no custom of circumcision in Japan. The term phimosis implies the adhesion of the prepuce and glans, which cannot be separated by manipulation. Phimosis was found in 88.5% of infants aged 1–3 months, and the corresponding figures at the ages of 4–6 months, 7–9 months, 10–12 months and 3 years were: 74.4, 63.9, 58.0 and 35.0%, respectively. However, cases where the prepuce could be retracted by gentle manipulation were found in 3.0% of infants aged 1–3 months, 19.9% of those aged 10–12 months and increased to 38.4% of children aged 3 years, which exceeded the rate of phimosis. The complete adhesion of prepuce and glans was found in many infants, and a small space between the prepuce and glans was observed in some cases of 3‐year‐old boys. The smegma was notable in only 16 cases (0.5%) of infants and in 5 cases (0.4%) of the 3‐year‐olds. Balanopothitis was found in only one case of the 3‐year‐olds. It is not recommended to separate the foreskin by manipulation, which sometimes leads to bleeding or paraphimosis. And it is not necessary to surgically correct phimosis in infancy and early childhood except in the case of accompanying urological disturbance.

Number of times cited: 10

  • , Circumcision related to urinary tract infections, sexually transmitted infections, human immunodeficiency virus infections, and penile and cervical cancer, International Journal of Urology, 20, 8, (769-775), (2013).
  • , Phimosis in Children, ISRN Urology, 2012, (1), (2012).
  • , Evaluation of the Pediatric Urology Patient, Campbell-Walsh Urology, 10.1016/B978-1-4160-6911-9.00115-8, (3067-3084.e3), (2012).
  • , A Japanese View on Circumcision: Nonoperative Management of Normal and Abnormal Prepuce, Urology, 76, 1, (21), (2010).
  • , Male Genitalia, Hernias, and Rectal Exam, Physical Diagnosis Secrets, 10.1016/B978-0-323-03467-8.10016-X, (488-506), (2008).
  • , Neonatal Circumcision and Penile Inflammation in Young Boys, Clinical Pediatrics, 46, 4, (329), (2007).
  • , Y-V plasty of the foreskin as an alternative to circumcision for surgical treatment of phimosis during childhood, Journal of Pediatric Urology, 3, 1, (45), (2007).
  • , The carcinogenicity of smegma: debunking a myth, Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 20, 9, (1046-1054), (2006).
  • , Décalottage ou circoncision : quelle indication dans le phimosis ?, Archives de Pédiatrie, 12, 9, (1424), (2005).
  • , A Cost-Utility Analysis of Neonatal Circumcision, Medical Decision Making, 24, 6, (584), (2004).