United Kingdom: Difference between revisions
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) m →A source of information and aid: Wikify. |
WikiModEn2 (talk | contribs) m →Phimosis diagnosis issues: Wikify. |
||
| Line 309: | Line 309: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
===Phimosis diagnosis issues=== | ===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. | 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 | 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 | |last=Rickwood | ||
|first= | |first= | ||
| Line 349: | Line 349: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</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 | 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 | |last=Rickwood | ||
|first= | |first= | ||
| Line 377: | Line 377: | ||
|DOI= | |DOI= | ||
|accessdate=2021-09-05 | |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 | }}</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 | |last=Griffiths | ||
|first= | |first= | ||
| Line 467: | Line 467: | ||
}}</ref> | }}</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 | 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 retractability was very inaccurate,<ref>{{REFjournal | ||
|last=Denniston | |last=Denniston | ||
|first=George C. | |first=George C. | ||