Journal of Pediatric Urology
Volume 3, Issue 1 , Pages 45-47 , February 2007

Y-V plasty of the foreskin as an alternative to circumcision for surgical treatment of phimosis during childhood

Received 8 January 2006 ,Accepted 26 January 2006.

References 

  1. Oster J. Further fate of the foreskin. The incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys. Arch Dis Child. 1986;43:200–203
  2. Delaere KP, Meulen ter PH. Treatment of phimosis: First ointment. NTvU. 2003;11:23–27[in Dutch]
  3. Imamura E. Phimosis of infants and young children in Japan. Acta Paediatr Jpn. 1997;39:403–405
  4. Howe Van RS. Cost-effective treatment of phimosis. Paediatrics. 1998;102:E43
  5. Ashfield JE, Nickel KR, Siemens DR, MacNeily AE, Nickel JC. Treatment of phimosis with topical steroids in 194 children. J Urol. 2003;169:1106–1108
  6. Cuckow PM, Rix G, Mouriquand PDE. Preputial plasty: a good alternative to circumcision. J Pediatr Surg. 1994;29:561–563
  7. De Castella H. Prepuceplasty: an alternative to circumcision. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1994;76:257–258
  8. Wahlin N. ‘Triple incision plasty’. A convenient procedure for preputial relief. Scand J Urol Nephrol. 1992;26:107–110
  9. http://www.aap.org/policy/re9850.htmlWorld Wide Web [Accessed January 2006]
  10. http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/lawsuits.htmWorld Wide Web [Accessed January 2006]
  11. http://www.noharmm.org/World Wide Web. [Accessed January 2006]
  12. Klijn AJ, Dik P, de Jong TP. Results of preputial reconstruction in 77 boys with distal hypospadias. J Urol. 2001;165:1255–1257

PII: S1477-5131(06)00025-8

doi: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2006.01.011

Journal of Pediatric Urology
Volume 3, Issue 1 , Pages 45-47 , February 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution