Treating phimosis

Paddy A Dewan
Med J Aust 2003; 178 (4): . || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2003.tb05127.x
Published online: 17 February 2003

First, let's decide what we really mean by phimosis

Circumcision remains a topic of significant debate in Australia, even though there has been a marked reduction in the rate of circumcision in this country, which has reflected that of England, where 95% of boys were circumcised in the 1930s, declining to 6.5% in the early 1980s.1 In this issue of the Journal (page 155), Spilsbury and colleagues report that many boys are circumcised for phimosis before the age of five years, despite phimosis being rare in boys of this age.2 They reviewed all circumcisions in Western Australian hospitals between 1981 and 1999, recording that the rate of medically indicated circumcisions increased during that period, and that, if the 1999 rate remains stable, it would be seven times the expected incidence of phimosis in the group of boys aged less than 15 years. These findings imply a high rate of unnecessary surgery, similar to the findings from studies conducted in England.1,3

  • Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville, VIC.


  • 1. Rickwood AMK, Kenny SE, Donnell SC. Towards evidence based circumcision of English boys: survey of trends in practice. BMJ 2000; 321: 792-793.
  • 2. 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>
  • 3. Shankar KR, Rickwood AM. The incidence of phimosis in boys. BJU Int 1999; 84: 101-102.
  • 4. Australian version of the international classification of diseases, 9th revision, clinical modification (ICD-9-CM). Sydney: National Coding Centre, 1995.
  • 5. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems, 10th revision, Australian modification (ICD-10-AM). Sydney: National Centre for Classification, 2000.
  • 6. 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: 239-244.
  • 7. Dewan PA, Tieu HC, Chieng BS. Phimosis: is circumcision necessary? J Paediatr Child Health 1996; 32: 285-289.
  • 8. Marzaro M, Carmignola G, Zoppellaro F, et al. Phimosis: when does it require surgical intervention? Minerva Pediatr 1997; 49: 245-248.
  • 9. Van Howe RS. Cost-effective treatment of phimosis. Pediatrics 1998; 102: E43.
  • 10. Pascotto R, Giancotti E. The treatment of phimosis in childhood without circumcision: plastic repair of the prepuce. Minerva Chir 1998; 53: 561-565.
  • 11. Kiss A, Csontai A, Pirot L, Nyirady P, et al. The response of balanitis xerotica obliterans to local steroid application compared with placebo in children. J Urol 2001; 165: 219-220.
  • 12. Lane TM, South LM. Lateral preputioplasty for phimosis. J R Coll Surg (Edin) 1999; 44: 310-312.
  • 13. Van Howe RS, Svoboda JS, Dwyer JG, Price CP. Involuntary circumcision: the legal issues. BJU Int 1999; 83 Suppl 1: 63-73.


remove_circle_outline Delete Author
add_circle_outline Add Author

Do you have any competing interests to declare? *

I/we agree to assign copyright to the Medical Journal of Australia and agree to the Conditions of publication *
I/we agree to the Terms of use of the Medical Journal of Australia *
Email me when people comment on this article

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.