15,635
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
→Phimosis diagnosis issues: Wikify.
}}</ref>
===Phimosis diagnosis issues===
Fewer boys were being circumcised so there were more [[intact]] boys. The general practitioners (GPs) in the UK seemed to be unable to distinguish between true [[phimosis]] and developmentally non-retractile healthy [[foreskin ]] and were referring numerous boys for unnecessary [[circumcision]].
Rickwood et al. (1980) had provided guidance on diagnosis of phimosis. According to Rickwood et al. true [[phimosis ]] occurs when the [[foreskin]] has been attacked by [[balanitis xerotica obliterans ]] (BXO) (also known as lichen sclerosis). If BXO is not present then true phimosis does not exist.<ref name="rickwood1980">{{REFjournal
|last=Rickwood
|first=
}}</ref>
Several papers critical of phimosis diagnosis practice in the UK were published in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Rickwood & Walker (1989) reported that in the Mersey region (northwest England) "many boys are [[circumcised ]] for development non-retractability of the prepuce rather than for true phimosis and that in consequence some two-thirds of the operations are unnecessary."<ref name="rickwood1989">{{REFjournal
|last=Rickwood
|first=
|DOI=
|accessdate=2021-09-05
}}</ref> Griffiths & Frank (1992) also expressed concern regarding the apparent inability of general practitioners to distinguish between a true phimosis and a developmentally non-retractile [[foreskin]]. They pointed out, "Not surprisingly, the diagnostic inaccuracy was greatest when the referring doctor did not examine the patient."<ref name="griffiths1992">{{REFjournal
|last=Griffiths
|first=
}}</ref>
In defence of the much criticised British GPs, it should be stated that the data they were provided by [[Douglas Gairdner]] regarding development of foreskin retractility retractability was very inaccurate,<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Denniston
|first=George C.