Journal of Pediatric Surgery
Volume 39, Issue 7 , Pages 1037-1039 , July 2004

Changing trends in a decade of circumcision in Scotland

  • O Quaba

      Affiliations

    • Department of Vascular Surgery, Basic Surgical Training Scheme South East Scotland, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationAddress reprint requests to O. Quaba, MRCS (Edin), SHO Vascular Surgery, Basic Surgical Training Scheme South East Scotland, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Lauriston Place, EH3 9YW Edinburgh, United Kingdom UK
    • ,
  • G.A MacKinlay

      Affiliations

    • Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

References 

  1. Williams N, Chell J, Kapila L. Why are children referred for circumcision?. BMJ. 1993;306:28
  2. Escala JM, Rickwood AMK. Balanitis. Br J Urol. 1989;63:196–197
  3. MacKinlay GA. Save the prepuce. Painless separation of preputial adhesions in the outpatient clinic. BMJ. 1988;297:590–591
  4. Gairdner DM. The fate of the foreskin. BMJ. 1949;2:1433–1437
  5. Rickwood AMK, Walker J. Is phimosis over diagnosed in boys and are too many circumcisions performed in consequence?. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1989;71:275–277
  6. Rickwood AMK, Kenny SE, Donnell SC. Towards evidence based circumcision of English boys (Survey of trends in practice). BMJ. 2000;321:792–793
  7. Wright JE. The treatment of childhood phimosis with topical steroid. Aust N Z J Surg. 1994;64:327–328
  8. Cuckow PM, Rix G, Mouriquand PD. Preputial plasty (A good alternative to circumcision). J Pediatr Surg. 1994;29:561–563
  9. Dennistoun GC. Circumcision and the code of ethics. Humane Health Care International. 1996;12:78–80

PII: S0022-3468(04)00215-5

doi: 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2004.03.061

Journal of Pediatric Surgery
Volume 39, Issue 7 , Pages 1037-1039 , July 2004

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution