Published Articles on Phimosis

Below is a list of published articles that pertain to phimosis. They represent the peer reviewed papers on the subject of phimosis. We strongly encourage readers to take their time and review these articles via their favourite article review subscription service.

A review of the scientific literature using PubMed was carried out in order to confirm the incidence and treatment options of adult male phimosis as well as the efficacy and side effects of such treatments. The focus was on the main treatments reported in the literature, namely circumcision and the use of steroid creams. For those looking for Information about the Novoglan device, this can be obtained from the manufacturer, Platigo Solutions Pty Ltd, Roseville, NSW, Australia.

1.  Cold CJ and Taylor JR. The prepuce. BJU Int. 1999 Jan;83 Suppl. 1:34-44. 

2. Hayashi Y, Kojima Y, Mizuno K and Kohri K. Prepuce: phimosis, paraphimosis and circumcision. Scientific World Journal. 2011 Feb 3; 11: 289-301.

3. Kikiros DS, Beasley SW and Woodward AA. The response of phimosis to local steroid applicationPediatric surgery international, 1993 8: 329-332.

4. Tekgül S, Dogan HS, Hoebecke P, Kocvara R, Nijman JM, Radmayr C and Stein R. EAU Guidelines on paediatric urology. In: European Association of Urology – Guidelines.  2016 Edition – Update March 2016, pp 11-12 

5.  Raj BP, Qureshi A, Kadi N and Donat R. How painful is adult circumcision? A prospective, observational cohort study. J Urol. 2013 Jun;189(6):2237-42. 

6.  Schöberlein W. Significance and incidence of phimosis and smegma. Munch Med Wochenschr. 1967 Feb 18; 108 (7): 373-7.

7. UNAIDS. Male circumcision: global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability. ISBN 978 92 9 173633 1 (UNAIDS)

8. Bossio JA, Pukall CF and Steele S. A review of the current state of the male circumcision literature. J Sex Med. 2014 Dec;11(12): 2847-64

9. Friedman B, Khoury J, Petersiel N, Yahalomi T, Paul M and Neuberger A. Pros and cons of circumcision: an evidence-based overview. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2016 Sep;22(9): 768-774.

10. Carmack A.  Complications of circumcision. Online referencing (2016, accessed 15 June 2018).

11. Williams N and Kapila L.  Complications of circumcision.  Br J Surg. 1993 Oct;80(10): 1231-6

12. Gerharz EW and Haarmann C. The first cut is the deepest? Medicolegal aspects of male circumcision.  BJU Int. 2000 Aug;86(3):332-8.

13. Fekete F, Torok and A Nyirady P. Revisions after unsatisfactory adult circumcisions. Int Urol Nephrol 2011; 43:431–435.

14. Bronselaer GA, Schober JM, Meyer-Bahlburg HF, T’Sjoen G, Vlietinck R and Hoebeke PB.  Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort.  BJU Int. 2013 May;111(5):820-7.

15. Morris BJ and Krieger JN. Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity or satisfaction? A systematic review. J Sex Med. 2013 Nov;10(11):2644-57.

16. Kim D. and Pang M-G. The effect of male circumcision on sexuality. BJUI Int. 2007 Mar; 99(3):619-22

17. Garcia de Freitas RNobre YDDemarchi GTHachul MMacedo A JrSrougi Mand Ortiz V.  Topical treatment for phimosis: time span and other factors behind treatment effectiveness.  Pediatr Urol. 2006 Aug;2(4):380-5.

18. Kuehhas FE, Miernik A, Sevcenco S, Tosev G, Weibl P, Schoenthaler M and Lassmann J. Predictive power of objectivation of phimosis grade on outcomes of topical 0.1% betamethasone treatment of phimosis.  Urology. 2012 Aug;80(2):412-6.

19. Srivastava A, Tepole AB and Hui C-Y. Skin stretching by a balloon tissue expander: interplay between contact mechanics and skin growth. Extreme Mechanics Letters. 2016;(9):175-187