Phimosis: Pathological or physiological?;Patologisk eller fysiologisk fimose?

Ugeskrift for Laeger

Volumn 167, Issue 17, 2005, Pages 1858-1862

  Thorvaldsen, Mette Andersen ^a,b   Meyhoff, Hans Henrik ^a  

^a HILLERØD HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^b NONE   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; EJACULATION; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NEWBORN; PHIMOSIS; PREPUCE; PUBERTY; QUESTIONNAIRE; SCHOOL CHILD; TREATMENT INDICATION;

EID: 17844394429     PISSN: 00415782     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Rickwood AM, Walker J. Is phimosis overdiagnosed in boys and are too many circumcisions performed in consequence? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1989;71: 275-7.
2. Gairdner D, The fate of foreskin. BMJ 1949;2:1433-7.
3. Nasrallah PF. Circumcisio: pros and cons. Prim Care 1985;12:593-605.
4. Wright JE. Non-therapeuthic Circumcisio. Med J Aust 1967;1:1083-6.
5. Kayaba H, Tamura H, Kitajima S et al. Analysis of shape and retractability of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys. J Urol 1996;156:1813-5.
6. Larsen GL, Williams SD. Postneonatal circumcisio: Population profile. Pediatrics 1990;85:808-12.