medigraphic.com
ISSN 0301-696X (Print)
Órgano de difusión del Servicio de Sanidad Militar y del Colegio Nacional de Médicos Militares

2018, Number 5-6

<< Back Next >>

Rev Sanid Milit Mex 2018; 72 (5-6)

Effectiveness of topical steroid treatment in physiological phimosis

Romero-Cortés I, Leonardo-Puerta JD, Márquez-Celedonio FG

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 300-304
PDF size: 190.51 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Phimosis is a condition in which the foreskin cannot be retracted on the glans. Physiological phimosis affects up to 96% of newborns, persisting until three or four years of age. It is a common reason for consultation in primary medical care, with the main treatment being circumcision. Several studies have evaluated the use of topical steroids in the release of the foreskin. Objective: To determine the effectiveness of topical steroid treatment for the liberation of the prepuce in infants with physiological phimosis in the Naval Hospital of Specialties of Veracruz (HOSNAVESVER). Material and methods: Randomized controlled clinical trial in infants between 30 and 60 days of age with physiological phimosis. Three groups were randomized: A (hydrocortisone 1%/physiotherapy), B (petrolatum/physiotherapy) and C (only hydrocortisone 1%), comparing their effectiveness using the Kayaba scale before and after treatment. A statistical analysis was made with χ2 and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results: 61 infants were included. At the beginning, 17 (85.0%) of group A, 14 (70.0%) of B and 17 (81.0%) of C were in category I of Kayaba; at the end of the treatment, 19 (95.0%) of group A were in category III and IV, 18 (90.0%) of group B, and 19 (90.5%) of group C were in category II and III (p ‹ 0.05). Hydrocortisone/physiotherapy had RR of -93.8%, 95% CI (-99.1% to -57.2%) and NNT of 1, 95% CI (1 to 2). Conclusion: Hydrocortisone 1% with physiotherapy showed greater effectiveness for the treatment of physiological phimosis in infants between 30 and 60 days of age.


REFERENCES

  1. Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol. 1996; 77 (2): 291-295.

  2. Ecker K, Janssen N, Franz M, Liedgens P. Die nicht retrahierbare Vorhaut bei beschwerdefreien Jungen Eine Indikation zur Zirkumzision? Urologue. 2016; 56: 351-357.

  3. Reinhard A. Die Therapie der Phimose im Wandel der Zeit [Tesis de doctorado]. 2013. Disponible en: http://www.opus.bibliothek.uniwuerzburg.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/9981.

  4. Chan I, Wong K. Common urological problems in children: prepuce, phimosis, and buried penis. Hong Kong Medical Journal. 2016; 22 (3): 263-269.

  5. Kayaba H, Tamura H, Kitajima S, Fujiwara Y, Kato T, Kato T. El análisis de forma y retracción del prepucio en 603 niños japoneses. J Urol. 1996; 156: 1813-1815.

  6. Castagnetti M, Leonard M, Guerra L, Esposito C, Cimador M. Benign penile skin anomalies in children: a primer for pediatricians. World J Pediatrics. 2015; 11 (4): 316-323.

  7. Abbas T, Mccarthy L. Foreskin and penile problems in childhood. Elsevier. 2016; 34 (5): 221-225.

  8. Clifford I, Craig S, Nataraja R, Panabokke G. Paediatric paraphimosis. Emergency Medicine Australasia. 2016; 28 (1): 96-99.

  9. Na AF, Tanny S, Hutson JM. Circumcision: Is it worth it for 21st century Australian boys? Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health. 2014; 51: 580-583.

  10. Lindsay R. The universal condition: medical constructions of ‘congenital phimosis’ in twentieth century New Zealand and their implications for child rearing. Health And History. 2014; 16 (1): 87. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.5401/healthhist.16.1.0087

  11. Sneppen I, Thorup NJ. Foreskin morbidity in uncircumcised males. Pediatrics. 2016; 137 (5): 1-7.

  12. Srinivasan M, Hamvas C, Coplen D. Rates of complications after newborn circumcision in a well-baby nursery, special care nursery, and neonatal intensive care unit. Clinical Pediatrics. 2015; 54 (12): 1185-1191.

  13. Hayashi Y, Kojima Y, Mizuno K, Kohri K. Prepuce: phimosis, paraphimosis, and circumcision. The Scientific World Journal. 2011; 11: 289-301.

  14. Liu J, Yang J, Chen Y, Cheng S, Xia C, Deng T. Is steroids therapy effective in treating phimosis? A meta-analysis. International Urology and Nephrolog. 2016; 48 (3): 335-342.

  15. Moreno G, Corbalán J, Peñaloza B, Pantoja T. Topical corticosteroids for treating phimosis in boys. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2014. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd008973.

  16. Miguélez C, Garat JM, Recober R. Tratamiento con esteroides tópicos en la fimosis. Anales de Pediatría Continuada. 2006; 4 (3): 183-188.

  17. Jones R, Angermeier K, Wildenfels P. Phimosis and paraphimosis. ClinicalKey. 2017. [Revisado el de 8 agosto 2011] Disponible en: http://www.clinicalkey.com/playContent/21-s2.0-6080335.

  18. Palmer L, Palmer J. The efficacy of topical betamethasone for treating phimosis: a comparison of two treatment regimens. Urology. 2008; 72 (1): 68-71.

  19. Parra T, Hernández MI, Pérez SM, Limón AY. Estudio retrospectivo del efecto del furoato de mometasona al 0.1% en el tratamiento no quirúrgico de fimosis y adherencias prepuciales en niños mexicanos. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex. 2012; 69 (1): 24-29.

  20. Rondón A. Buen uso de los esteroides tópicos. Med Cutan Iber Lat Am. 2013; 41 (6): 245-253.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com