Advertisement

The History of Phimosis from Antiquity to the Present

  • Frederick Mansfield Hodges

Abstract

Since the mid-nineteenth century, a culturally-significant disease construct known as phimosis has been commonly recognised. Beginning at birth and usually ending by late adolescence, the historical biography of phimosis portrays it as an illness unique to juvenile males. Additionally, presumably responsible, scientific, unbiased, and rational physicians, writing in leading medical journals and text books, have claimed over the last 100 years that the results of their scientific studies prove that phimosis is the cause of such diseases as cancer of the male and female reproductive organs, venereal disease, epilepsy, hydrocephalus, insanity, idiocy, masturbation, heart disease, homosexuality, deafness, dumbness, urinary tract infections, criminality, and death. The drive to cure and prevent phimosis, thus, has been presented as a surgical solution to the most pressing social and moral problems.

Keywords

Penile Cancer Lichen Sclerosus Clobetasol Propionate Glans Penis Male Genital Tract 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cartwright SA. Report on the diseases and physical peculiarities of the negro race. New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal 1951;7:691–715. [here, p. 707].Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rickwood AMK, Walker J. Is phimosis overdiagnosed in boys and are too many circumcision performed in consequence? Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 1989;71:275–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Breast Cancer rate for 1990:31,364. Prostate Cancer rate for 1990:14,263. Lung Cancer rate for 1990: 29,187. International Agency for Research on Cancer. European Network of Cancer Registries. Cancer in the European Union in 1990. Great Britain. http://www-dep.iarc.fr/dataava/educan9O/ukg.htm
  4. 4.
    Genesis 17:1–14.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hippocrates Aphorisms vi. xix. In: Jones WHS, trans. Hippocrates. Vol. IV. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1931:182–5. [Translated here by F.M. Hodges]Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Galenus. 18(2) 812.13. In: Kiihn CG, ed. Medicorum graecorum. vol. 18(2). Leipzig: Cnobloch. 1821-1833:812.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heliodorus. apud Oribasium. 44.20.72. In: Raeder I, ed. Oribasii. Collectionurn Medicarum Reliquiae. vol. 3. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert, 1964:141.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dioscorides. De Materia Medica. 4.91. In: Wellmann M, ed. Pedanii Dioscuridis anazarbei de Materia Medica, vol. 2. Berlin: Weidmann. 1906.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Andromachus. apud Galenum. 13.311.7,9. In: Kiihn CG, ed. Medicorum graecorum. vol. 13. Leipzig: Cnobloch, 1821-1833:311.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Celsus. De Medicina. 7.25.2. In: Spencer WG, ed and trans. Celsus. De Medicina. vol. 3. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938:422.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Celsus. De Medicina. 6.18.2. In: Spencer WG, ed and trans. Celsus. De Medicina. vol 2. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1938:268.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Antyllus. apud Oribasium. 50.5.1. In: Oribasii. Collectionurn Medicarum Reliquiae. vol. IV. Raeder I, ed. Amsterdam: Adolf M Hakkert. 1964:58.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Antyllus. apud Oribasium. 50.6.1. In: Oribasii. Collectionum Medicarum Reliquiae. vol. IV. Raeder I, ed. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert. 1964:59.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Galeni de Compositione Medicamentorum per Genera, Liber VII. vii, In: Ktihn DCG, ed. Medicorum Graecorum Opera Quae Exstant, Vol. XIII. Leipzig: Cnobloch. 1827:985.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sorani Gynaeciorum. XXXVI. 103.19-27. In: Sorani Gynaeciorum. Rose V, ed. Lipsiae: Teubner. 1882:278.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dioscuridis. De Materia Medica II 82.2.I: Wellmann M, ed. Pedanii Dioscuridis Anazarbei De Materia Medica. Vol. 1. Berlin: Weidmann. 1907:166.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Antyllus apud Oribasium L.2. In: Raeder I ed, Oribasii Collectionum Medicarum Reliquiae. Vol. IV. Amsterdam: Adolf M. Hakkert. 1964:55–6.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gabrielis Falloppi Mutinensis Medici Excellentissimi Opuscula. De Decoratione. De Praeputii Brevitate corrigenda Cap. XVIII. Padua: Lucam Bertellum. 1566:48–9.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dionis. Cows d’operations de Chirurgie. Bruxelles: Les Freres t’Serstevens. 1708:177.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Heister L. A General System of Surgery. 7th ed. London: J. Clarke, J. Whiston, B. White, L. Davis, C. Reymers, R. Baldwin, W. Johnson, H. Woodfall. 1763:129.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Heister L. A General System of Surgery. 7th ed. London: J. Clarke, J. Whiston, B. White, L. Davis, C. Reymers, R. Baldwin, W. Johnson, H. Woodfall. 1763:130.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hunter J. A Treatise on the Venereal Disease. First American Edition. Philadelphia: J. Webster. 1818:205–8.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cooper A. Lecture 61. Lancet 1824;3:321–32. [here, p. 329.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rosenberg CE. Sexuality, Class and Role in 19th-Century America. American Quarterly 1973;25:131–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Discussions of this history are found in the following works: Nissenbaum SW. Sex, Diet, and Debility in Jacksonian America: Sylvester Graham and Health Reform. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press. 1980; and: Sokolow JA. Eros and Modernization: Sylvester Graham, Health Reform, and the Origins of Victorian Sexuality in America. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson. 1983.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Starr P. The Social Transformation of American Medicine. New York: Basic Books. 1982:42.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Starr P. The Social Transformation of American Medicine. New York: Basic Books. 1982:112.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sayre LA. Partial paralysis from reflex irritation, caused by congenital phimosis and adherent prepuce. Transactions of the American Medical Association 1870;21:205–11.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sayre LA. Circumcision versus epilepsy, Etc. Medical Record 1870;5:233–4.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Heckford N. Circumcision as a remedial measure in certain cases of epilepsy, chorea, &c. Clinical Lectures and Reports by the Medical and Surgical Staff of the London Hospital 1865;258–64.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sayre LA. Spinal ankmia with partial paralysis and want of coordination, from irritation of the genital organs. Transactions of the American Medical Association 1875;26:255–74.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Park R. Genital irritation, together with some remarks on the hygiene of the genital organs in young children. Chicago Medical Journal and Examiner 1880;41:561–70.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Taylor AS. Case of congenital phimosis leading to death at the age of 83. Lancet 1891;1:1040.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lennard FM. Adhered prepuce. Texas Courier-Record of Medicine 1986;4:146–7.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    See: Gentry WD. Nervous derangements produced by sexual irregularities in boys. Medical Current 1890;62:68–74.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wetherill HG. Phimosis and circumcision. University Medical Magazine 1892;5(1):17–9.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wetherill HG. Phimosis and circumcision. University Medical Magazine 1892;5(1):17–9.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Moses MJ. The value of circumcision as a hygienic and therapeutic measure. New York Medical Journal 1871;14:368–74.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Morton WJ, Dana CL. Preliminary notes of autopsy held upon the body of Charles J. Guiteau. Medical Record 1882;22:53–5.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lamb DS. Report of the post-mortem examination of the body of Charles J. Guiteau. Medical News 1882;41:43–5.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gentry WD. Nervous derangements produced by sexual irregularities in boys. Medical Current 1890;6:268–74.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Paget. Epithelial cancer of the penis.—Amputation. Recovery. Medical Times and Gazette 1852;2:415–6.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Remondino PC. History of Circumcision. Philadelphia: FA Davis. 1891:226–35.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hutchinson J. On balanitis and allied affections: No. I. A plea for circumcision. Archives of Surgery 1890;2:15.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Wolbarst AL. Does circumcision in infancy protect against disease? Virginia Medical Monthly 1934;60:723–8.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wolbarst AL. Circumcision in infancy: a prophylactic and sanitary measure. American Medicine 1926;32:23–9.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Wolbarst AL. Circumcision and penile cancer. Lancet 1932;1:150–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cupp MR, Malek RS, Goellner JR, Smith TF, Espey MJ. The detection of human papillomavirus deoxyribonucleic acid in intraepithelial, in situ, verrucous and invasive carcinoma of the penis. J Urol 1995;154:1024–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Schoen EJ. The relationship between circumcision and cancer of the penis. CA Cancer Clin J 1991;41:1991.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Wolbarst AL. Circumcision and penile cancer. Lancet 1932;1:150–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Dean AL Jr. Epithelioma of the penis. J Urol 1935;33:252–83.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dagher R, Selzer ML, Lapides J. Carcinoma of the penis and the anti-circumcision crusade. J Urol 1973;110:79–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Lenowitz H, Graham AP. Carcinoma of the penis J Urol 1946;56:458–84.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hardner GJ, Bhanalaph T, Murphy GP, Albert DJ, Moore RH. Carcinoma of the penis: analysis of therapy in 100 consecutive cases. J Urol 1972;108:428–30.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wolbarst AL. Circumcision and penile cancer. Lancet 1932;1:150–3. [here, p. 153.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Dean AL Jr. Epithelioma of the penis J Urol 1935;33:252–83. [here, p. 256.]Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Remondino PC. History of Circumcision. Philadelphia: FA Davis 1891:60.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Harish K, Ravi R. The role of tobacco in penile carcinoma. Br J Urol 1995;75:375–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Holt LE, Howland J, Holt LE Jr, McIntosh R, eds. Holt’s Diseuses of Infancy and Childhood. 10th ed. New York: D. Appleton and Company. 1933:323.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Holt LE, Howland J, Holt LE Jr, McIntosh R, eds Holt’s Diseuses of Infancy and Childhood. 10th ed. New York: D. Appleton and Company 1933:646–7.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Holt LE, Howland J, Holt LE Jr, McIntosh R, eds Holt’s Diseuses of Znfancy and Childhood. 10th ed. New York: D. Appleton and Company. 1933:779.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    McCrea ED. Diseuses of the Urethra and Penis. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1940:239.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Holt LE Jr, McIntosh R. Holt Pediatrics. 12th ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc. 1953:878.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Holt LE Jr, McIntosh R. Holt Pediatrics. 12 ed. New York: Appleton-Centuy-Crofts, Inc. 1953:878.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Holt LE Jr, McIntosh R. Holt Pediatrics. 12 ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc. 1953:3.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Campbell M. Embryology and anomalies of the urogenital tract. In: Campbell M, ed. Urology. vol. 1. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders 1954:405.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Campbell M. Embryology and anomalies of the urogenital tract. In: Campbell M, ed. Urology. vol. 1. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders 1954:406.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Campbell MF. The male genital tract and the female urethra. In: Campbell MF, Hamson JH, eds Urology. vol. 2. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1970:1834.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Campbell MF. The male genital tract and the female urethra. In: Campbell MF, Hamson JH, eds Urology. vol. 2. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company. 1970:1836. Similar statements are to be found in the 1954 and 1963 editions of the textbook. See: Campbell M. Embryology and anomalies of the urogenital tract. In: Campbell M, ed. Urology. vol. 1. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders 1954:407. and Campbell M. The male genital tract and the female urethra. In: Campbell MF, ed. Urology. vol. 3.2nd ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders 1963:1979.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Campbell MF. The male genital tract and the female urethra. In: Campbell MF, Hamson JH, eds Urology. vol. 2. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company. 1970:1835. Campbell repeated and embellished this story of the five deaths in the first three editions of his textbooks, starting with the first edition in 1953. See: Campbell M. Embryology and anomalies of the urogenital tract. In: Campbell M, ed. Urology. vol. 1. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders 1953:406.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Levitt SB. Urology: Congenital urogenital disorders: penis: prepuce. In: Rudolph AM, Barnett HL, Einhorn AH, ed. Pediatrics. 16th ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1977:1335.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    The citation Weiss provides (Barnett HL, Einhorn AH. Pediatrics. 15th ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft. 19681553) is erroneous on multiple counts The correct citation can only be: Levitt SB. Urology: Congenital urogenital disorders: penis: prepuce. In: Rudolph AM, Barnett HL, Einhorn AH, ed. Pediatrics. 16th ed. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1977:1335. The 1977 edition of this textbook is the only edition that contained the story of the five deathsGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Weiss GN. Neonatal circumcision. South Med J 1985;78:1198–200.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Steinberg B, Saunders V. Popliteal pterygium syndrome. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology 1987;63:17–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin: a study of circumcision. BMJ 1949;2:1433–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Øster J. Further fate of the foreskin: incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys Arch Dis Childh 1968;43:200–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Wall RL Jr. Routine circumcision? Recent trends and concepts North Carolina Medical Journal 1968;29:103–7. Wall reports that the overal incidence of routine neonatal circumcision in the North Carolina Baptist Hospital was 94%.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Chalmers RJG, Burton PA, Bennett RF, Goring CC, Smith PJB. Lichen sclerosus et atrophicus. Arch Dermato1 1984;120:1025–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Clemmensen OJ, Krogh J, Petri M. The histologic spectrum of prepuces from patients with phimosis Am J Dennatophathol 1988;10:104–8.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Clemmensen OJ, Krogh J, Petri M. The histologic spectrum of prepuces from patients with phimosis Am J Dennatophathol 1988;10:104–8.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Rickwood AMK, Hemalatha V, Batcup G, Spitz L. Phimosis in boys. Br J Urol 1980;52:147–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Rickwood AMK, Walker J. Is phimosis overdiagnosed in boys and are too many circumcision performed in consequence? Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England 1989;71:275–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Rickwood AMK. The foreskin. Presented at the British Association of Paediatric Urologists 1997 Course. Churchill College, Cambridge. September 11, 1997.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    MacKinlay GA. Save the prepuce. Painless separation of preputial adhesions in the outpatient clinic. BMJ 1988;297:590–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Rickwood AMK. Save the prepuce. BMJ 1988;297:1126–7.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    MacKinlay GA. Save the prepuce. BMJ 1988;297:1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Hoffman S, Metz P, Ebbehej J. A new operation for phimosis: prepuce-saving technique with multiple Y-V-plasties Br J Urol 1984;56:319–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Cuckow P, Mouriquand P. Saving the normal foreskin. BMJ 1993;306:459.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    de Castella H. Prepuceplasty: an alternative to circumcision. Ann R Col1 Surg Engl 1994;76:257–8.Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    Gordon A, Collin J. Save the normal foreskin. Widespread confusion over what the medical indications for circumcision are. BMJ 1993;306:1–2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Williams N, Chell J, Kapila L. Why are children referred for circumcision? BMJ 1993;306:28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Jergensen ET, Svensson Å. The treatment of phimosis in boys, with a potent topical steroid (clobetasol propionate 0.05%) cream. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1993;73:55–6.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Jergensen ET, Svensson Å. The treatment of phimosis in boys, with a potent topical steroid (clobetasol propionate 0.05%) cream. Acta Derm Venereol (Stockh) 1993;73:55–6.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Kikiros CS, Beasley SW, Woodward AA. The response of phimosis to local steroid application. Pediatr Surg Int 1993;8:329–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Lindhagen T. Topical clobetasol propionate compared with placebo in the treatment of unretractable foreskin. Eur J Surg 1996;162:969–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Lindhagen T. Topical clobetasol propionate compared with placebo in the treatment of unretractable foreskin. Eur J Surg 1996;162:969–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Kayaba H, Tamura H, Kitajima S, Fujiwara Y, Kato T, Kato T. Analysis of shape and retractability of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys. J Urol 1996;156:1813–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Masters WH, Johnson VE, Kolodny RC. Human Sexuality. 4th ed. New York HarperCollins 1992:59. [figure 3–11.]Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Masters WH, Johnson VE, Kolodny RC. Human Sexuality. 4th ed. New York: HarperCollins 1992:62. [figure 3-12.]Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    English JC, Laws RA, Keough GC, Wilde JL, Foley R, Elston DM. Dermatoses of the glans penis and prepuce. J Am Acad Dennatol 1997;37:1–24. [figure 2.]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Clayman CB. The American Medical Association Encyclopedia of Medicine. New York: Random House. 1989:779.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Larson DE, ed. Mayo Clinic Family Health Book. New York: William Morrow. 1990:49.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Larson DE, ed. Mayo Clinic Family Health Book New York William Morrow. 1990:49.Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    See: The New Good Housekeeping Family Health and Medical Guide. New York Hearst Books 1989:258.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    Schoen EJ, Anderson G, Bohon C, Hinman F Jr, Poland RL, Wakeman EM. Report of the task force on circumcision. Pediatrics 1989;84:388–91.Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Caldamone AA, Schulman S, Rabinowitz R. Outpatient pediatric urology. In: Gillenwater JY, Grayhack JT, Howards SS, Duckett JW, ed. Adult and Pediatric Urology. 3rd ed. vol. 3. St. Louis: Mosby. 1996:2730–1.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Brendler CB. Evaluation of the urologic patient. In: Campbell’s Urology. 7th ed. vol. 1. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders. 1998:142.Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    Reimbursement adviser. How to get reimbursed for circumcision. OBG Management (October 1993):25.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederick Mansfield Hodges

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations