To the Editor: Spilsbury et al argue that "improved education for physicians, and perhaps parents, with regard to foreskin development and management is required."1 However, updating of textbooks and medical curricula is required to accomplish this objective. Articles by Caldamone et al2 and Cendron et al3 are two examples of incorrect data in text books.
- 1. Spilsbury K, Semmens JB, Wisniewski ZS, Holman CDJ. Circumcision for phimosis and other medical indications in Western Australian boys. Med J Aust 2003; 178: 155-158. <eMJA full text>
- 2. Caldamone AA, Schulman S, Rabinowitz R. Outpatient pediatric urology. In: Gillenwater JY, Grayhack JT, Howards SS, Duckett JW, eds. Adult and pediatric urology. Vol. 3. St Louis: Mosby, 1996: 2730.
- 3. Cendron M, Elder JS, Duckett JW. Perinatal urology. In: Gillenwater JY, Grayhack JT, Howards SS, Duckett JW, eds. Adult and pediatric urology. Vol. 1. St Louis: Mosby, 1996: 2152.
- 4. Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin: a study of circumcision. BMJ 1949; 2: 1433-1437.
- 5. Wright JE. Further to the "further fate of the foreskin": Update on the natural history of the foreskin. Med J Aust 1994; 160: 134-135.
- 6. Øster J. Further fate of the foreskin: incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys. Arch Dis Child 1968; 43: 200-220.
- 7. Kayaba H, Tamura H, Kitajima S, et al. Analysis of shape and retractability of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys. J Urol 1996; 156: 1813-1815.
Publication of your online response is subject to the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial discretion. You will be notified by email within five working days should your response be accepted.