What is it about?
A large proportion of general practitioners have difficulty in discriminating between a true phimosis and a developmentally non-retractile foreskin. This diagnostic inaccuracy was greatest when the referring doctor did not examine the patient and inappropriately refer the patient to a pediatric surgeon for circumcision due to fear of obstructed voiding.
Featured Image
Why is it important?
Boys with physiological phimosis with or without ballooning of foreskin showed no evidence of obstructed voiding). In conclusion physicians should be educated on the conservative management and care of thel foreskin and be able to distinguish between physiological phimosis and balanitis xerotica obliterans in order to decrease inappropriate circumcision referrals.
Perspectives
Writing this article was a great pleasure as it has co-authors with whom I have had long standing collaborations. This article also lead to disease groups contacting me and ultimately to a greater involvement in disease research.
Professor shahnoor islam
Dhaka Medical College and Hospital
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Inappropriate Circumcision: Referrals by General Practitioners, Journal of Paediatric Surgeons of Bangladesh, June 2015, Bangladesh Journals Online (BanglaJOL),
DOI: 10.3329/jpsb.v4i1.23931.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
