Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
The College of Family Physicians of Canada
  • Other Publications
    • http://www.cfpc.ca/Canadianfamilyphysician/
    • https://www.cfpc.ca/Login/
    • Careers and Locums
  • My alerts
The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Archive
    • Supplemental Issues
    • Collections - French
    • Collections - English
  • Info for
    • Authors & Reviewers
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Advertisers
    • Careers & Locums
    • Subscribers
    • Permissions
  • About CFP
    • About CFP
    • About the CFPC
    • Editorial Advisory Board
    • Terms of Use
    • Contact Us
  • Feedback
    • Feedback
    • Rapid Responses
    • Most Read
    • Most Cited
    • Email Alerts
  • Blogs
    • Latest Blogs
    • Blog Guidelines
    • Directives pour les blogues
  • Mainpro+ Credits
    • About Mainpro+
    • Member Login
    • Instructions
  • RSS feeds
  • Follow cfp Template on Twitter
LetterLetters

Gairdner was wrong

George C. Denniston and George Hill
Canadian Family Physician October 2010, 56 (10) 986-987;
George C. Denniston
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
George Hill
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Metcalfe and Elyas have produced a truly excellent paper1 that should become a classic. We would recommend it to anyone.

Having said that, we do have one quibble with this paper. The authors cited Wright2 when discussing complications of circumcision. Wright also said the following: Gairdner’s otherwise masterly description contained one inaccuracy. He said that the foreskin should be fully retractable by three years of age. Clinical observation reveals that this is not true. It should be open and beginning to retract by three years of age but full retractability may not be achieved [until] many years later. Indeed nature will not permit the assignment of a strict timetable to this process.2

Inexplicably, Metcalfe and Elyas then quoted Gairdner’s inaccurate figures on the development of foreskin retractility.

Gairdner, for whom we generally have the very highest respect, reported in his classic paper that he used a probe to break the normal fusion between the inner surface of the foreskin and the underlying glans penis to create a retractable foreskin, and thus avoid a circumcision.3 But he also said that “it is inadvisable as a routine procedure.”

Gairdner’s bar graph shows a steep increase in retractility from birth to age 3 years. This does not occur in nature; it is possible that these values were obtained by the use of the probe. In any event, they have been disproved by later research. In actuality, development of retractility tends to be much slower.

Gairdner’s values for the development of foreskin retractility stood alone and unchallenged for decades, during which they were quoted by the authors of numerous textbooks.4 Unfortunately, thousands of physicians the world over have been trained with these false values. This undoubtedly has contributed to false diagnoses of pathological phimosis and large numbers of medically unnecessary amputations of healthy nonretractile foreskins in many nations.

Øster,5 Kayaba et al,6 Morales Concepción et al,7 Agarwal et al,8 and Ko et al9 all have demonstrated that the development of preputial retraction is a very gradual and variable event that occurs between birth and the completion of puberty. Moreover, Thorvaldsen and Meyhoff carried out a survey in Denmark and reported that the mean age of first foreskin retraction is 10.4 years.10 All of these authors provide evidence that refutes Gairdner’s 1949 data.

Gairdner’s values for foreskin retraction belong in a museum of medical history, but they should not be applied in current clinical practice.

  • Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada

References

  1. ↵
    1. Metcalfe PD,
    2. Elyas R
    . Foreskin management. Survey of Canadian pediatric urologists. Can Fam Physician. Vol. 56. 2010. p. e290-5. Available from: www.cfp.ca/cgi/reprint/56/8/e290. Accessed 2010 Sep 9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Wright JE
    . Further to “the further fate of the foreskin.” Update on the natural history of the foreskin. Med J Aust 1994;160(3):134-5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Gairdner D
    . The fate of the foreskin, a study of circumcision. Br Med J 1949;2(4642):1433-7.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    1. Hill G
    . Circumcision for phimosis and other medical indications in Western Australian boys. Med J Aust 2003;178(11):587.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Øster J
    . Further fate of the foreskin. Incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys. Arch Dis Child 1968;43(228):200-3.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  6. ↵
    1. Kayaba H,
    2. Tamura H,
    3. Kitajima S,
    4. Fujiwara Y,
    5. Kato T,
    6. Kato T
    . Analysis of shape and retractability of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys. J Urol 1996;156(5):1813-5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Morales Concepción JC,
    2. Cordiés Jackson E,
    3. Guerra Rodríguez M,
    4. Mora Casacó B,
    5. Morales Aranegui A,
    6. González Fernández P
    . Should circumcision be performed in childhood? [article in Spanish]. Arch Esp Urol 2002;55(7):807-11.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Agarwal A,
    2. Mohta A,
    3. Anand RK
    . Preputial retraction in children. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg 2005;10(2):89-91.
    OpenUrl
  9. ↵
    1. Ko MC,
    2. Liu CK,
    3. Lee WK,
    4. Jeng HS,
    5. Chiang HS,
    6. Li CY
    . Age-specific prevalence rates of phimosis and circumcision in Taiwanese boys. J Formos Med Assoc 2007;106(4):302-7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Thorvaldsen MA,
    2. Meyhoff HH
    . Pathological or physiological phimosis? [article in Danish]. Ugeskr Læger 2005;167(17):1858-62.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 56 (10)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 56, Issue 10
1 Oct 2010
  • Table of Contents
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on The College of Family Physicians of Canada.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Gairdner was wrong
(Your Name) has sent you a message from The College of Family Physicians of Canada
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the The College of Family Physicians of Canada web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Gairdner was wrong
George C. Denniston, George Hill
Canadian Family Physician Oct 2010, 56 (10) 986-987;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Gairdner was wrong
George C. Denniston, George Hill
Canadian Family Physician Oct 2010, 56 (10) 986-987;
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Thankful to have a choice
  • No vast numbers of untreated women
  • Recognizing white privilege
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Archive
  • Collections - English
  • Collections - Française

For Authors

  • Authors and Reviewers
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Permissions
  • Terms of Use

General Information

  • About CFP
  • About the CFPC
  • Advertisers
  • Careers & Locums
  • Editorial Advisory Board
  • Subscribers

Journal Services

  • Email Alerts
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2021 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire