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
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
Review ArticleClinical Review

Foreskin care

Hygiene, importance of counselling, and management of common complications

Cale Leeson, Humberto Vigil and Luke Witherspoon
Canadian Family Physician February 2025; 71 (2) 97-102; DOI: https://doi.org/10.46747/cfp.710297
Cale Leeson
Urology resident in the Division of Urology at the University of Ottawa in Ontario.
MD
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Humberto Vigil
Urologist and Assistant Professor in the Division of Urology at the University of Ottawa.
MD MEd FRCSC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Luke Witherspoon
Urologist in the Division of Urology at the University of Ottawa.
MD MSc FRCSC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: lwitherspoon@ohri.ca
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Objective To highlight the escalating need for enhanced education on foreskin care among patients and health care providers, particularly as neonatal circumcision rates decline.

Sources of information This review is based on findings from a MEDLINE database search of the literature on care of the penile foreskin, foreskin complications, and their management. Articles were reviewed for relevance and quality of evidence was provided with the level of evidence in parentheses throughout the review. When available, evidence from systematic reviews, relevant clinical guidelines, and randomized controlled trials were incorporated. In the absence of high-level evidence, expert opinion on the topic was provided.

Main message As neonatal circumcision rates decline, the importance of educating patients on proper foreskin care becomes increasingly vital to avoid complications later in life. This review highlights the role of primary care providers as crucial resources for patient education. Based on the available evidence, the following are reviewed: rates of circumcision in Canada and current circumcision practices; recommendations for routine foreskin care; and common preputial complications including urinary tract infections, pathologic phimosis, balanoposthitis, penile lichen sclerosus (balanitis xerotica obliterans), and penile cancer.

Conclusion This review explored current trends and practices in circumcision, routine foreskin care, and common complications seen in uncircumcised patients. There is a need for education that extends to allied health professionals working with patients in health care facilities. Primary care providers have an important role in facilitating education for patients and providing recommendations on proper penile hygiene.

Routine neonatal circumcision rates are declining in North America.1-4 There is a deficit in general knowledge and consensus on recommendations for routine foreskin care among practitioners. Much of the available data focus on care of the foreskin in early childhood. Given this trend, there is a rising need for education on routine foreskin care from primary care providers across a patient’s lifespan. In this review, we aim to investigate current trends in circumcision, provide recommendations on best practices for foreskin care, and explore potential foreskin complications in later life (Box 1).

Box 1.

Summary of recommendations: Level of evidence is provided in parentheses.

  1. During infancy, the foreskin should not be forcibly retracted to avoid microtears and scarring that can lead to pathologic phimosis (level 2)

  2. Most physiologic phimosis will resolve without any intervention (level 2)

  3. Counselling on when the foreskin should be retractable should assume a patient-centred approach, with the focus being on education—avoiding traumatic retraction—and pathologic signs requiring intervention rather than a strict age cut-off (level 3)

  4. Routine neonatal circumcision is not recommended in all newborn males (level 3)

  5. To minimize the need for adult circumcision, promotion of adequate foreskin care and hygiene, as well as fostering awareness about common foreskin complications, should be considered (level 3)

  6. Foreskin care should begin at birth, with regular genital hygiene. When retractable, the child can be taught to gently retract and clean the foreskin with water. Once dried, the foreskin should always be reduced back over the glans (level 3)

  7. Regular retraction of the foreskin with bathing helps reduce smegma accumulation and inflammation, as well as prevents pathologic phimosis and adhesions (level 2)

  8. Topical corticosteroids are safe and effective first-line treatment for physiologic phimosis (level 1)

  9. Routine circumcision to prevent urinary tract infections is not recommended (level 3)

  10. Diabetes screening should be considered in patients who present with pathologic phimosis (level 2)

  11. Indications for urologic consultation for phimosis include true pathologic phimosis with evident scarring of the preputial ring or evidence of balanitis xerotica obliterans, recurrent episodes of balanitis, painful erections secondary to a tight foreskin, or recurrent urinary tract infections (level 3)

  12. Ballooning of the foreskin alone (ie, without other signs of pathologic phimosis) is not associated with obstructed voiding and is not an indication for circumcision (level 2)

  13. Patients with penile lichen sclerosus should be counselled to perform regular self-examination for any concerning lesions, given the increased risk of penile cancer later in life (level 3)

  14. Proper penile hygiene can help prevent balanoposthitis (level 3)

  15. Patients should be counselled to always return the foreskin to its anatomic position covering the glans after retraction to prevent paraphimosis (level 3)

  16. Consider referral for patients with recurrent episodes of paraphimosis for consideration of circumcision as a definitive treatment (level 3)

  17. Patients in health care settings should be provided regular penile hygiene care by care teams if unable to perform it themselves (level 3)

  18. After penile hygiene by health care team members, the foreskin should always be returned to its anatomic position—reduced over the glans—after each hygiene session to avoid paraphimosis (level 3)

  19. Patients in long-term care facilities who require chronic bladder catheterization are particularly at risk of paraphimosis, and this should be considered during hygiene care and physical examination by the health care team to ensure the foreskin is reduced (level 3)

Sources of information

This review is based on findings from a MEDLINE database search of the literature on care of the penile foreskin, foreskin complications, and their management. Articles were reviewed for relevance and quality of evidence is provided with the level of evidence in parentheses (Box 2). When available, we incorporated evidence from systematic reviews, relevant clinical guidelines, and randomized controlled trials. In the absence of high-level evidence, expert opinion on the topic is provided.

Box 2.

Levels of evidence as per Canadian Family Physician

  • Level 1: At least 1 properly conducted randomized controlled trial, systematic review, or meta-analysis

  • Level 2: Other comparison trials; non-randomized, cohort, case-control, or epidemiologic studies; and preferably more than 1 study

  • Level 3: Expert opinion or consensus statements

Main message

Natural history of the foreskin and physiologic phimosis. The prepuce or foreskin is the retractile covering of skin over the glans penis. The foreskin is naturally adherent to the glans penis at birth, comprising outer and inner layers separated by dartos fascia.3 During infancy, it is advisable not to forcibly retract the foreskin, given the adherence of the inner foreskin to the glans penis by an epithelial lining, known as physiologic phimosis (level 2).3-5 Forceful retraction of the foreskin causes microtears at the preputial orifice, leading to scarring and an eventual phimotic ring.5 Over time, reflex erections and the accumulation of smegma, a white exudate containing skin cells and keratin, facilitates the natural separation of epithelium from the glans penis.3-6 Patients should be reassured that the accumulation of smegma is a normal phenomenon, aiding in separation of the foreskin from the glans. This process can continue into the late teens, and in most boys, physiologic phimosis will resolve with time (level 2).5,6 The age at which physiologic phimosis resolves is highly variable. In 1949, Gairdner reported that completion of adhesion separation typically occurs by the age of 3 in about 90% of boys.7 In 1968, Oster found that approximately 4% of schoolboys aged 6 to 17 years have non-retractile prepuces.6 A 2006 study published by Hsieh et al reported that the incidence of normal foreskin, where the entire glans is visible after retraction of the foreskin, is 8.2% by age 7, 21.0% by age 10, and 58.1% by age 13 (Table 1).8 Therefore, counselling on when the foreskin becomes retractile should assume a patient-centred approach, focusing on education to avoid traumatic retraction, and pathologic signs requiring intervention rather than a strict age cut-off (level 3). We recommend reassurance that asymptomatic physiologic phimosis is normal in boys and typically resolves without any intervention. However, further discussion is warranted with parents of boys who have urinary tract abnormalities (antenatal hydronephrosis, high-grade vesicoureteral reflux, posterior urethral valves, and primary megaureters), as there has been a stronger effect of neonatal circumcision in prevention of urinary tract infections (UTIs) in this population.3

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
Table 1.

Incidence of physiologic phimosis by age

Circumcision rates and practices in North America. The decision to perform neonatal circumcision remains a personal parental choice, and both performing and not performing circumcision remain common. It has been estimated that circumcision rates in Canada in 1970 were between 51% to 67%, declining to current estimates of 31.9%, possibly due to changing parental beliefs and demographic patterns.3,9 Given this decline in neonatal circumcision, there is a growing need for education on routine care and managing complications of the foreskin across the lifespan.

Routine neonatal circumcision has been a topic of debate for years. The Canadian Paediatric Society does not recommend routine neonatal circumcision (level 3).2 In-depth analysis of this topic is beyond the scope of this review and has been outlined elsewhere.2,3 The proposed benefits of circumcision include decreased risk of UTIs, HIV infection, human papillomavirus (HPV) prevalence, HPV incidence, herpes simplex virus infection, and penile cancer.3 However, given the low rates of these events in North America and the availability of non-surgical options to prevent infections (eg, condom use), routine neonatal circumcision remains unjustified based on the evidence available.3

Though generally considered safe, circumcision is not without complications. In a recent meta-analysis of 351 studies and more than 4 million males of all ages, the risk of complications requiring treatment was 3.84%.10 The risk increases when circumcision is performed for preputial disease.10 The most common complications are bleeding, device removal, infections, adhesions, and meatal stenosis.10

Adult circumcision is often performed for pain or discomfort from phimosis, recurrent paraphimosis, recurrent balanitis, or malignancy. Patients inquiring about the procedure often ask about pain and sexual function following circumcision. Pain following the procedure is mild to moderate, tempered with techniques such as intraoperative penile block. In a prospective observational cohort of adult patients undergoing circumcision, patient-reported severe pain was rare and almost always associated with infection or wound complications.11 Time off work is variable, but 4 to 5 days for non–physically demanding activities and 7 to 14 days for physically demanding activities are recommended.11 Regarding sexual function, studies suggest that circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or sexual pleasure.12-17 Nevertheless, to minimize the need for adult circumcision entirely, a potentially effective strategy may involve emphasizing the promotion of adequate foreskin care and hygiene, and fostering awareness among both patients and health care providers about common foreskin complications (level 3).

Foreskin care. For patients presenting with foreskin concerns, proper physical examination by physicians is important. Ask the patient to retract the foreskin themselves if able. Smegma may be noted under the foreskin. Normal foreskin has no evidence of pale scarring at the preputial outlet. Examine the glans penis under the foreskin and note the location of the urethral meatus. If the foreskin cannot be retracted, it should never be forced, so as to avoid microtears at the preputial orifice. (Patient encounters for foreskin concerns provide an excellent opportunity to discuss foreskin care.)

The literature on proper foreskin care and hygiene is limited, and mainly consists of studies in a pediatric setting. In a comparative study of circumcised and uncircumcised adult men, uncircumcised men were found to be less likely to regularly wash the whole penis including retracting the foreskin.18 This finding is supported within our own practices, where many uncircumcised adults are unaware or uninformed about how to properly care for their foreskin. Inferior penile hygiene behaviour has been associated with increased risk of foreskin complications such as balanitis.18 Foreskin care should begin at birth, with regular genital hygiene. When the foreskin is retractable, the child can be taught to gently retract and clean it with water. Once dried, the foreskin should always be reduced back to cover the glans (level 3).3,5,19,20 Soap and hygiene products can irritate the foreskin and urethral meatus.21 Counselling patients that gently retracting the foreskin and rinsing with a stream of water in the shower or rinsing while the penis is immersed in a bath is all that is necessary.

Continuing proper hygiene habits into adulthood is crucial. Regular retraction of the foreskin should be integrated into the long-term hygiene practices of uncircumcised patients, as it has been associated with reduced smegma accumulation, inflammation, pathologic phimosis, and adhesions (level 2).22 In a cohort study of 48 patients in the United States (age range 2 weeks to 52 years), it was found that cleansing the glans a minimum of 2 to 3 times per week with gentle retraction of the foreskin can decrease the incidence of common foreskin conditions such as phimosis.23 Additionally, patients who washed while retracting the foreskin were less likely to have adhesions or phimosis than those who did not. Among the patients, 20 (41.7%) recalled being instructed by a physician or health care provider to gently attempt foreskin retraction when washing, 7 (14.6%) had been told to wash without retracting the foreskin, and 19 (39.6%) had never received any instructions. These findings identify a gap in preventive care and reinforce the need for proper foreskin care and hygiene in uncircumcised patients, as well as proper instruction from health care providers, to avoid complications later in life.

Treatment of physiologic phimosis. Asymptomatic physiologic phimosis does not require treatment and typically resolves with time. The Canadian Urological Association guideline on the care of normal foreskins in Canadian infants states there may be a role for topical corticosteroids if there is delayed retraction of the foreskin beyond 8 to 10 years of age.3 Topical corticosteroids thin the preputial skin and obliterate the stratum corneum, allowing gentle retraction over time, and are considered effective first-line treatment for physiologic phimosis (level 1).3 A recent Cochrane review of 14 randomized controlled trials (1459 patients up to 18 years of age) found that topical corticosteroids, compared with placebo or no treatment, may increase the frequency of complete and partial retraction of the foreskin after 4 to 8 weeks of treatment.24 In addition, topical corticosteroids may also increase the probability of long-term resolution of phimosis at 6 or more months after treatment.24 The most common corticosteroids used in the randomized trials were betamethasone and clobetasol propionate.24 Penile lichen sclerosus, or balanitis xerotica obliterans, is typically resistant to topical steroid therapy, and referral for dermatologic and urologic assessment in these cases is warranted.5 Strict adherence to proper application of the medication is essential for the success of the treatment, and physicians should give clear instructions on how to do so.3,25 We recommend rinsing the foreskin with water twice daily, drying the area, and then gently retracting the foreskin as much as possible without discomfort before precisely applying a thin layer of the topical steroid to the phimotic margin.25-27 The prepuce should also be gently retracted several times daily once treatment begins, especially when voiding and during daily bathing.25,27 In our practice, we prescribe 0.05% clobetasol twice daily for 8 weeks, and those whose symptoms do not respond are offered a second cycle of therapy if they are interested. Afterward, patients are reassessed, and we proceed with observation or discuss circumcision with patients depending on their preference.

Complications of the uncircumcised penis. There are several complications, including UTIs, pathologic phimosis, penile lichen sclerosus or balanitis xerotica obliterans, penile cancer, balanoposthitis, and paraphimosis.

Urinary tract infection: Neonatal circumcision has been shown to decrease the risk of UTIs; however, the overall risk of UTIs is low in infant males and decreases with age.3 The Canadian Urological Association does not recommend routine circumcision for UTI prevention (level 3).3

Pathologic phimosis: Pathologic phimosis and acquired phimosis are synonymous terms referring to the inability to retract the foreskin over the glans of the penis due to a tight or narrow preputial opening that develops from a secondary cause (Figure 1). Common causes of acquired phimosis include chronic inflammation, balanoposthitis, forceful foreskin retraction leading to scarring, lichen sclerosus, and diabetes mellitus.28 Screening patients with acquired phimosis for diabetes should be considered, as it has been shown that a new diagnosis of diabetes may be found in up to 8% of those with acquired phimosis and no prior history of diabetes (level 2).29

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 1.

Pathologic phimosis in an uncircumcised elderly male exhibiting classic signs of penile lichen sclerosus, including white scarring and thickening of the foreskin

Indications for urologic consultation for phimosis include pathologic phimosis with evident scarring of the preputial ring or evidence of balanitis xerotica obliterans, recurrent episodes of balanitis, painful erections secondary to a tight foreskin, or recurrent UTIs (level 3).5 Characterizing phimosis as pathologic or physiologic remains a diagnostic challenge among physicians. Most referrals for phimosis in the pediatric setting have been shown to be physiologic upon urologic review, with only 14.4% proceeding to circumcision.30 Referrals often cite “ballooning” of the foreskin, which can be alarming for patients. However, ballooning is a harmless phenomenon and is not associated with obstructed voiding; it is not necessarily a sign of pathologic phimosis or an indication for circumcision if it is the sole concern (level 2).4,31

Penile lichen sclerosus (balanitis xerotica obliterans) and penile cancer: Penile lichen sclerosus is a chronic inflammatory skin condition involving the glans and foreskin.28 It can lead to scarring of the preputial ring and pathologic phimosis.32 The exact cause is unclear and may involve history of traumatic injury or an autoimmune process.28 Penile lichen sclerosus is a risk factor for penile squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and urethral stricture disease. Penile SCC itself is rare in North America, with risk factors including tobacco use, chronic inflammation, balanitis, penile lichen sclerosus, phimosis, poor hygiene, absence of childhood circumcision, and sexually transmitted diseases such as HPV infection.33 This further underscores the need for adequate penile hygiene and care. Studies have identified pre-existing penile lichen sclerosus in 28% to 50% of cases of penile SCC.34-37 The average time for cancer to develop after the onset of lichen sclerosus is 10 to 34 years, and we recommend patients be counselled to perform regular self-examinations (level 3).28,32

Balanoposthitis: Balanoposthitis refers to inflammation of both the glans penis and the foreskin. A diagnosis of balanitis has been shown to be more likely in uncircumcised patients than in those who are circumcised.18 The condition often occurs secondary to poor hygiene, and treatment consists of cleansing and application of antibacterial ointment (level 3).5 Recurrent episodes of balanoposthitis is an indication for urologic consultation as it can lead to scarring and pathologic phimosis.5

Paraphimosis: Paraphimosis is a condition where the foreskin, once retracted behind the glans of the penis, becomes trapped and cannot be pulled back to its original position. This results in swelling and constriction of the foreskin behind the glans, leading to potential complications such as impaired blood circulation, pain, and inflammation. Paraphimosis is considered a medical emergency and prompt intervention is necessary to alleviate the condition. Most cases can be reduced manually by applying steady pressure to the glans and constricted skin to alleviate edema, followed by using the thumbs to forcefully push the glans while the fingers pull the foreskin over the glans.5 If this is unsuccessful, a circumcision or dorsal slit procedure may be required for reduction of the foreskin. Patients should be counselled to always return the foreskin to its anatomic position covering the glans after retraction to prevent paraphimosis (level 3). Those who have recurrent episodes of paraphimosis should be referred to a urologist for consideration of circumcision as a definitive treatment option (level 3).

Foreskin care in special populations. Penile hygiene is a health priority over the entire lifespan of a patient. This becomes especially pertinent for special populations, including but not limited to residents of health care facilities, and those with intellectual or physical disabilities, dementia, Parkinson disease, or history of stroke. Awareness of proper penile hygiene for caregivers in these settings is also important. An Australian study involving care staff for patients with an intellectual disability identified a widespread lack of policy, training, and professional guidance for penile hygiene.38 Patients in health care settings should be provided regular penile hygiene care by health care teams if unable to perform it themselves (level 3). It is recommended that nursing professionals and support workers cleanse the genitals of patients during routine hygiene care.39 The foreskin should always be returned to its anatomic position (ie, reduced over the glans) after each hygiene session to avoid paraphimosis (level 3). Patients in long-term care facilities who require chronic bladder catheterization are at particular risk of paraphimosis, especially after cleansing of the penis when the foreskin may not be reduced properly.40 Following catheter care, we recommend examination of the penis to ensure the foreskin has been reduced (level 3). For patients with catheters, any collection of smegma at the urethral meatus should be removed to prevent ascension of bacteria into the urethra.39 Physicians should be conscious of individuals who may be at high risk of foreskin complications in these settings and advocate for routine penile hygiene practices.

Conclusion

This review explored current trends and practices in circumcision, routine foreskin care, and the common complications seen in uncircumcised patients. We identified a need for education that extends to allied health professionals working with patients in health care facilities. Primary care providers have an important role in facilitating education for patients and providing recommendations on proper penile hygiene.

Notes

Editor’s key points

  • ▸ Foreskin care education begins in childhood, with gentle retraction and cleansing of the foreskin with water. Soap and hygiene products can irritate the foreskin and urethral meatus, so washing with water only is advised. The foreskin should always be reduced to cover the glans after cleaning and drying. Proper care continues across the lifespan, as regular retraction of the foreskin reduces smegma accumulation, inflammation, pathologic phimosis, and adhesions.

  • ▸ Most cases of physiologic phimosis will resolve without any intervention. Counselling by primary care physicians should focus on avoidance of traumatic retraction, proper hygiene techniques, and pathologic signs requiring intervention. Providers can offer a course of topical corticosteroids for bothersome physiologic phimosis as first-line therapy. Patients whose symptoms do not respond may be offered a second cycle of therapy.

  • ▸ Penile hygiene is especially important in health care settings where patients may be unable to perform care for themselves. Health care professionals in these facilities should ensure the foreskin is returned to its anatomic position after cleaning to prevent paraphimosis. For patients with catheters, smegma removal at the urethral meatus is necessary to prevent bacterial ascension. Physicians should advocate for routine penile hygiene practices in these settings to prevent complications.

Footnotes

  • Contributors

    All authors contributed to conducting the literature review and to preparing the manuscript for submission.

  • Competing interests

    None declared

  • This article is eligible for Mainpro+ certified Self-Learning credits. To earn credits, go to https://www.cfp.ca and click on the Mainpro+ link.

  • This article has been peer reviewed.

  • Cet article se trouve aussi en français à la page 105.

  • Copyright © 2025 the College of Family Physicians of Canada

References

  1. 1.↵
    1. Morris BJ,
    2. Bailis SA,
    3. Wiswell TE.
    Circumcision rates in the United States: rising or falling? What effect might the new affirmative pediatric policy statement have? Mayo Clin Proc 2014;89(5):677-86. Epub 2014 Apr 2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Sorokan ST,
    2. Finlay JC,
    3. Jefferies AL; Canadian Paediatric Society, Fetus and Newborn Committee, Infectious Diseases and Immunization Committee
    . Newborn male circumcision. Paediatr Child Health 2015;20(6):311-20.
    OpenUrl
  3. 3.↵
    1. Dave S,
    2. Afshar K,
    3. Braga LH,
    4. Anderson P.
    CUA guideline on the care of the normal foreskin and neonatal circumcision in Canadian infants. Can Urol Assoc J 2017;12(2).
  4. 4.↵
    1. Metcalfe PD,
    2. Elyas R.
    Foreskin management. Survey of Canadian pediatric urologists. Can Fam Physician 2010;56:e290-5. Available from: https://www.cfp.ca/content/cfp/56/8/e290.full.pdf. Accessed 2024 Jan 8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. McGregor TB,
    2. Pike JG,
    3. Leonard MP.
    Pathologic and physiologic phimosis. Approach to the phimotic foreskin. Can Fam Physician 2007;53:445-8.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  6. 6.↵
    1. Oster 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
  7. 7.↵
    1. Gairdner D.
    The fate of the foreskin, a study of circumcision. Br Med J 1949;2(4642):1433-7.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Hsieh TF,
    2. Chang CH,
    3. Chang SS.
    Foreskin development before adolescence in 2149 schoolboys. Int J Urol 2006;13(7):968-70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Morris BJ,
    2. Wamai RG,
    3. Henebeng EB,
    4. Tobian AA,
    5. Klausner JD,
    6. Banerjee J, et al.
    Estimation of country-specific and global prevalence of male circumcision. Popul Health Metr 2016;14:4. Erratum in: Popul Health Metr 2016;14:11.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Shabanzadeh DM,
    2. Clausen S,
    3. Maigaard K,
    4. Fode M.
    Male circumcision complications—a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. Urology 2021;152:25-34. Epub 2021 Feb 2.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Rai BP,
    2. Qureshi A,
    3. Kadi N,
    4. Donat R.
    How painful is adult circumcision? A prospective, observational cohort study. J Urol 2013;189(6):2237-42. Epub 2012 Dec 28.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Morris BJ,
    2. Krieger JN.
    Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction?—a systematic review. J Sex Med 2013;10(11):2644-57. Epub 2013 Aug 12. Erratum in: J Sex Med 2020;17(3):560.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. 13.
    1. Shabanzadeh DM,
    2. Düring S,
    3. Frimodt-Møller C.
    Male circumcision does not result in inferior perceived male sexual function—a systematic review. Dan Med J 2016;63(7):A5245.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  14. 14.
    1. Yang Y,
    2. Wang X,
    3. Bai Y,
    4. Han P.
    Circumcision does not have effect on premature ejaculation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Andrologia 2018;50(2). Epub 2017 Jun 27.
  15. 15.
    1. Cox G,
    2. Krieger JN,
    3. Morris BJ.
    Histological correlates of penile sexual sensation: does circumcision make a difference? Sex Med 2015;3(2):76-85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. 16.
    1. Krieger JN,
    2. Mehta SD,
    3. Bailey RC,
    4. Agot K,
    5. Ndinya-Achola JO,
    6. Parker C, et al.
    Adult male circumcision: effects on sexual function and sexual satisfaction in Kisumu, Kenya. J Sex Med 2008;5(11):2610-22. Epub 2008 Aug 28.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. 17.↵
    1. Morris BJ,
    2. Krieger JN.
    The contrasting evidence concerning the effect of male circumcision on sexual function, sensation, and pleasure: a systematic review. Sex Med 2020;8(4):577-98. Epub 2020 Sep 30.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    1. O’Farrell N,
    2. Quigley M,
    3. Fox P.
    Association between the intact foreskin and inferior standards of male genital hygiene behaviour: a cross-sectional study. Int J STD AIDS 2005;16(8):556-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    1. Simpson ET,
    2. Barraclough P.
    The management of the paediatric foreskin. Aust Fam Physician 1998;27(5):381-3.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.↵
    1. Abara EO.
    Prepuce health and childhood circumcision: choices in Canada. Can Urol Assoc J 2017;11(1-2 Suppl 1):S55-62.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. 21.↵
    1. Drake T,
    2. Rustom J,
    3. Davies M.
    Phimosis in childhood. BMJ 2013;346:f3678. Erratum in: BMJ 2013;347:f5632.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  22. 22.↵
    1. Li B,
    2. Shannon R,
    3. Malhotra NR,
    4. Rosoklija I,
    5. Liu DB.
    Advising on the care of the uncircumcised penis: a survey of pediatric urologists in the United States. J Pediatr Urol 2018;14(6):548.e1-5. Epub 2018 Jun 28.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  23. 23.↵
    1. Krueger H,
    2. Osborn L.
    Effects of hygiene among the uncircumcised. J Fam Pract 1986;22(4):353-5.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  24. 24.↵
    1. Moreno G,
    2. Ramirez C,
    3. Corbalán J,
    4. Peñaloza B,
    5. Morel Marambio M,
    6. Pantoja T.
    Topical corticosteroids for treating phimosis in boys. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2024;1(1):CD008973.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  25. 25.↵
    1. Orsola A,
    2. Caffaratti J,
    3. Garat JM.
    Conservative treatment of phimosis in children using a topical steroid. Urology 2000;56(2):307-10.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. 26.
    1. Letendre J,
    2. Barrieras D,
    3. Franc-Guimond J,
    4. Abdo A,
    5. Houle AM
    . Topical triamcinolone for persistent phimosis. J Urol 2009;182(4 Suppl):1759-63. Epub 2009 Aug 19.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  27. 27.↵
    1. Lund L,
    2. Wai KH,
    3. Mui LM,
    4. Yeung CK.
    An 18-month follow-up study after randomized treatment of phimosis in boys with topical steroid versus placebo. Scand J Urol Nephrol 2005;39(1):78-81.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  28. 28.↵
    1. Minhas S,
    2. Manseck A,
    3. Watya S,
    4. Hegarty PK.
    Penile cancer—prevention and premalignant conditions. Urology 2010;76(2 Suppl 1):S24-35.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    1. Bromage SJ,
    2. Crump A,
    3. Pearce I.
    Phimosis as a presenting feature of diabetes. BJU Int 2008;101(3):338-40. Epub 2007 Nov 13.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    1. McGregor TB,
    2. Pike JG,
    3. Leonard MP.
    Phimosis—a diagnostic dilemma? Can J Urol 2005;12(2):2598-602.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    1. Babu R,
    2. Harrison SK,
    3. Hutton KA.
    Ballooning of the foreskin and physiological phimosis: is there any objective evidence of obstructed voiding? BJU Int 2004;94(3):384-7.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    1. Micali G,
    2. Nasca MR,
    3. Innocenzi D,
    4. Schwartz RA.
    Penile cancer. J Am Acad Dermatol 2006;54(3):369-94.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.↵
    1. Beech B,
    2. Izawa J,
    3. Pautler S,
    4. Chin J,
    5. Power N.
    Penile cancer: perspective from a Canadian tertiary care centre. Can Urol Assoc J 2015;9(9-10):315-9.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    1. Pietrzak P,
    2. Hadway P,
    3. Corbishley CM,
    4. Watkin NA.
    Is the association between balanitis xerotica obliterans and penile carcinoma underestimated? BJU Int 2006;98(1):74-6.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.
    1. Velazquez EF,
    2. Cubilla AL.
    Lichen sclerosus in 68 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis: frequent atypias and correlation with special carcinoma variants suggests a precancerous role. Am J Surg Pathol 2003;27(11):1448-53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.
    1. Perceau G,
    2. Derancourt C,
    3. Clavel C,
    4. Durlach A,
    5. Pluot M,
    6. Lardennois B, et al.
    Lichen sclerosus is frequently present in penile squamous cell carcinomas but is not always associated with oncogenic human papillomavirus. Br J Dermatol 2003;148(5):934-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    1. Powell J,
    2. Robson A,
    3. Cranston D,
    4. Wojnarowska F,
    5. Turner R.
    High incidence of lichen sclerosus in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Br J Dermatol 2001;145(1):85-9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  38. 38.↵
    1. Wilson NJ,
    2. Cumella S,
    3. Parmenter TR,
    4. Stancliffe RJ,
    5. Shuttleworth RP.
    Penile hygiene: puberty, paraphimosis and personal care for men and boys with an intellectual disability. J Intellect Disabil Res 2009;53(2):106-14. Epub 2008 Nov 21.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  39. 39.↵
    1. Wodwaski N,
    2. Munyan K.
    Self-care promotion of the intact (non-circumcised) patient: a review of available recommendations. J Spec Pediatr Nurs 2020;25(4):e12297. Epub 2020 Jun 1.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  40. 40.↵
    1. Williams JC,
    2. Morrison PM,
    3. Richardson JR.
    Paraphimosis in elderly men. Am J Emerg Med 1995;13(3):351-3.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Family Physician: 71 (2)
Canadian Family Physician
Vol. 71, Issue 2
1 Feb 2025
  • 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.
Foreskin care
(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
Foreskin care
Cale Leeson, Humberto Vigil, Luke Witherspoon
Canadian Family Physician Feb 2025, 71 (2) 97-102; DOI: 10.46747/cfp.710297

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
Foreskin care
Cale Leeson, Humberto Vigil, Luke Witherspoon
Canadian Family Physician Feb 2025, 71 (2) 97-102; DOI: 10.46747/cfp.710297
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Sources of information
    • Main message
    • Conclusion
    • Notes
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • eLetters
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Soins du prépuce
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Long-term monitoring needed for lichen sclerosus
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Top studies of 2024 relevant to primary care
  • Approach to steatotic liver disease in the office
Show more Clinical Review

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
  • LinkedIn
  • Instagram
  • RSS Feeds

Copyright © 2025 by The College of Family Physicians of Canada

Powered by HighWire