Difference between revisions of "Care of intact, foreskinned boys"

From IntactiWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Add external link.)
(Add section.)
Line 60: Line 60:
 
  |accessdate=2021-07-18
 
  |accessdate=2021-07-18
 
}}</ref>
 
}}</ref>
 +
==Not recommended==
 +
Mayo Clinic provides information on the care of [[foreskinned]] boys. This advice is ''not'' recommended. The language indicates prejudice against [[intact]] boys, a lack of understanding of the [[Immunological and protective function of the foreskin| immmunological and protective functions]], and lack of current information on [[Development of retractable foreskin| development of foreskin retraction]].
 
{{SEEALSO}}
 
{{SEEALSO}}
 
* [[Ballooning of the foreskin]]
 
* [[Ballooning of the foreskin]]

Revision as of 14:48, 22 January 2023

Care of intact, foreskinned boys provides parents with basic information on the care of intact boys.

Video



Discussion

The intact foreskin has protective and immunological functions that work best when the foreskin is left alone.

The preputial mucosa of the foreskin is fused with the glans penis by the synechia in infancy and childhood so the foreskin cannot be retracted. No attempt to retract the foreskin should be made. Forcible retraction is harmful. Wright (1994) advises that the first person to retract the boy’s foreskin should be the boy himself.[1]

Thorvaldsen & Meyhoff (2005) conducted a survey of 4,000 boys in Denmark where most boys are intact. They reported that the mean age of first foreskin retraction is 10.4 years in Denmark.[2] Øster (1968) reported that a few boys may not retract until after puberty.[3]

Not recommended

Mayo Clinic provides information on the care of foreskinned boys. This advice is not recommended. The language indicates prejudice against intact boys, a lack of understanding of the immmunological and protective functions, and lack of current information on development of foreskin retraction.

See also

External links

References

  1. REFjournal Wright JE. Further to the "Further Fate of the Foreskin". Med J Aust. 7 February 1994; 160: 134-135. PMID. Retrieved 17 October 2019.
  2. REFjournal Thorvaldsen MA, Meyhoff H. Patologisk eller fysiologisk fimose? [Pathological or physiological phimosis?] (Danish). Ugeskr Læger. 2005; 167(17): 1858-1862. Retrieved 14 November 2019.
  3. REFjournal Øster J. Further fate of the foreskin: incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys. Arch Dis Child. 1 April 1968; 43: 200-3. PMID. PMC. DOI. Retrieved 18 July 2021.