Functional phimosis: prevalence, diagnosis and treatment in outpatient practice


Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Abstract

Aim. To study the prevalence of functional phimosis determined during erection in patients over 18 years of age, as well as the features of its diagnosis and treatment in outpatient practice. Materials and methods. A retrospective study that included 201 patients who underwent circumcision at a mean age of 42.7 years, was carried out. Complaints, history, initial examination and autophotography of the penis during erection were evaluated. The subjects were divided into 2 groups. The group I (n=38) included patients complaining of the inability to reveal the glans penis during erection, while in group II (n=163) men with similar complaints in a flaccid state of the penis were included. All patients underwent circumcision under local anesthesia. Results. The proportion of functional phimosis was 18.9%. The mean age in groups I and II was significantly different (29.47+8.82 and 45.6+19.4 years, respectively, p<0.01). In 14 (36.8%) patients of group I, a short frenulum was also diagnosed. Primary phimosis was detected in 26.3% and 14.1% of patients in groups I and II (p<0.05), respectively. The acquired phimosis was diagnosed in 73.7% and 85.9% (p<0.05) of cases, respectively. There were no concomitant diseases in patients with “functional” phimosis, while in men with “pathological” phimosis, 22.7% of patients had various comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus, coronary heart disease, hypertension, etc. Conclusions. Among patients who visit a urologist with a diagnosis of phimosis, almost every fifth man has functional form (18.9%). For the diagnosis of the phimosis, the history taking and autophotography of the penis during erection have an important role. In this category of patients, surgical treatment can be performed on an outpatient basis.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

N. D Akhvlediani

A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry

Email: nikandro@mail.ru
Ph.D., MD, professor at the Department of Urology Moscow, Russia

A. V Sadchenko

Municipal clinical hospital named after S.I. Spasokukotskiy of the Moscow Healthcare Department

Email: dос.sadchenko@yandex.ru
Ph.D., Head of the Department of Short Stay Unit Moscow, Russia

E. A Prilepskaya

Municipal clinical hospital named after S.I. Spasokukotskiy of the Moscow Healthcare Department

Email: prilepskayae@mail.ru
researcher at the Department of Urology Moscow, Russia

A. M Smernitsky

NUZ NKC OAO “RJD”

Email: andreysm2005@mail.ru
urologist Moscow, Russia

D. Yu Pushkar

A.I. Evdokimov Moscow State University of Medicine and Dentistry

Email: pushkardm@mail.ru
Ph.D., MD, professor, academician of RAS, Head of the Department of Urology Moscow, Russia

References

  1. Morris B.J., Matthews J.G., Krieger J.N. Prevalence of Phimosis in Males of All Ages: Systematic Review. Urology. 2019, S0090429519309197-. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019;10.003.
  2. Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin, a study of circumcision. Br Med J. 1949;2(4642):1433-1437, illust. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.4642.1433.
  3. Oster J. Further fate of the foreskin. Incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys. Arch Dis Child. 1968;43(228):200-203. doi: 10.1136/adc.43.228.200.
  4. 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(5):1813-1185. PMID: 8863623.
  5. Аляев Ю.Г., Ахвледиани Н.Д. Сравнение эффективности селективной пенильной денервации и циркумцизио при первичной преждевременной эякуляции. Урология. 2016;1(Прил. 1):60-64
  6. Meuli M., Briner J., Hanimann B., Sacher P. Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus causing phimosis in boys: a prospective study with 5-year followup after complete circumcision. J Urol. 1994;152(3) :9878-9879. Doi: 10.1016/ s0022-5347(17)32638-1.
  7. Kikiros C.S., Beasley S.W. Woodward A.A. The response of phimosis to local steroid application. Pediatr Surg Int. 1993;8:329-332. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00173357
  8. Shahid S.K. Phimosis in children. ISRN Urol. 2012;2012:707329. doi: 10.5402/2012/707329.
  9. Gallo L., Perdona S., Gallo A. The role of short frenulum and the effects of frenulectomy on premature ejaculation. J Sex Med. 2010;7(3):1269-1276. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01661.x.
  10. Morris B.J., Gray R.H., Castellsague X., Bosch F.X., Halperin D.T., Waskett J.H., Hankins C.A. The Strong Protective Effect of Circumcision against Cancer of the Penis. Adv Urol. 2011 ;2011:812368. doi: 10.1155/2011/812368.
  11. Jonathan L.W., Daniel W.L., Janet L.S. Circumcision and the risk of prostate cancer. Cancer. 2012;118(18): 4437-4443.
  12. Li Y.D., Teng Y., Dai Y., Ding H. The Association of Circumcision and Prostate Cancer: A Meta-Analysis. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2016;17(8):3823-3827.
  13. Bromage S.J., Crump A., Pearce I. Phimosis as a presenting feature of diabetes. BJU Int. 2008;101(3):338-340. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07274.x.
  14. Romero F.R., Romero A.W., Almeida R.M., Oliveira F.C. Jr, Filho R.T. Jr. Prevalence and risk factors for penile lesions/anomalies in a cohort of Brazilian men ≥ 40 years of age.Int Braz J Urol. 2013;39(1):55-62. doi: 10.1590/S1677-5538.IBJU.2013.01.08.
  15. Forouhi N.G., Merrick D., Goyder E., Ferguson B.A., Abbas J, Lachowycz K., Wild S.H. Diabetes prevalence in England, 2001--estimates from an epidemiological model. Diabet Med. 2006;23(2): 189-197. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2005.01787.x.
  16. Kirtschig G. Lichen Sclerosus-Presentation, Diagnosis and Management. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2016;113(19):337-343. doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2016.0337.
  17. Williams N, Kapila L.Complications of circumcision. Br J Surg. 1993;80(10):1231-36. doi: 10.1002/bjs.1800801005.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Copyright (c) 2022 Bionika Media

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies