Ania D. - 2009-01-27, 14:55 Temat postu: napletek u chłopców Wklejam z forum hxxp://www.maluchy.pl/forum/index.php?showtopic=58334&st=0]maluchy wypowiedź Bogusi123456 na temat napletka. Uważam, że warto się z tym zapoznać, tym bardziej, że przedstawia zupełnie inne podejście do tego tematu niż mają zwykle polscy lekarze. Pamiętam też z WD, że dziewczyny były z synkami u lekarzy, gdzie dosyć brutalnie napletek był ściągany u maluchów. Mąż szukał na stronach niemieckich, jak to jest w Niemczech, tam nie zaleca się "grzebania" przy siusiaczku przynajmniej do 4 roku życia. W Polsce spotyka się zalecenia, by jak nawcześniej próbować odciągać napletek. Cała dyskuja ma 2 strony, warto ją przeczytać. Bogusia123456: No dobra, nie bylo mnie troche bo z racji ograniczen czasowych i zw z tym, braku potencjalu na dluzsze wypisanie sie 06.gif , do watku chwilowo nie zagladalam zeby dalej nie ciagnac dyskusji co sie komu z nas wydaje. A teraz tez bedzie w telegraficznym (subiektywnie icon_wink.gif ) skrocie. Po latach bezrefleksyjnego uznawania ze sa 2 rozne obozy, bez wnikania w przyczyny ( bo wszak prawda jedna tylko zazwyczaj 03.gif ) i przerzucania sie historiami w stylu `bo moje dziecko to tak, a moje inaczej, bo wujek Gienek to musial miec i tak operacyjnie i jak to kurde bolaaaaalooooo, a kolega znajomej Zdziska to dopiero sobie narooobil, bo moj syn ma stulejke, a mojemu sie przykleilo, a jeszcze komus mastka przytkalo albo nieznosnie mu jedzie....... jako i bazowania na wlasnych teoriach, natrectwach i upodobaniach....mysle ze przyszedl w koncu czas na rzeczowa dyskusje 06.gif , obustronnie poparta (lub nie) sensownymi argumentami (i przykro mi ale zaliczyc do nich nie moge powiedzonek z rekawa znajomego lekarza icon_wink.gif ) Odrobilam wiec prace domowa... icon_wink.gif Jako ze jest jeszcze cos takiego jak medycyna oparta na doswiadczeniu kreujaca nurt oficjalny, wsparty bynajmniej nie wyimaginowanymi teoriami, a co to ma oparcie w konkretach. No wiec wracajac do faktow - wygrzebalam tylko ulamek pewnie. Nawet nie wiem czy powinnam cytatami rzucac, bo to co znalazlam, podane jest niestety nie po naszemu i w takiej formie zostawie bo tlumaczyc nie mam kiedy. Jesli ktos sie pofatyguje, to dobrze. Jesli nie, trudno. Dyskutowac dalej nie bede. Pozostawie tak ku refleksji wlasnej. I zanim ktos uzyje kluczowego argumentu o wyssanych z palca teoriach amerykanskich naukowcow icon_cool.gif , to spiesze doniesc ze ci ostatni w tym temacie konkretnym przyznaja sie bez bicia ze ich XIX wieczna teoryjka byla porazka na calej linii i zdecydowanie dali plame gloszac cos co kompletnie nie mialo uzasadnienia w rzeczywistosci czy/i nauce. No ale od tamtego czasu uplynelo juz ladnych 100 lat i dawno im sie oficjalne zalecenia pozmienialy. W dodatku tym razem rzeczywiscie poparte rzeczowymi argumentami i doswiadczeniem (europejskim i azjatyckim- jak rozumiem, z wyjatkiem Polski icon_razz.gif ) Dobra! Fakty mowia tyle ze przy bezproblemowej* anatomii ( tu * bo do tego sie pozniej odniose) nie ma absolutnie potrzeby majstrowania na zapas przy wyposazeniu mlodocianym meskim tu konkretnie. ponadto (mowiac ciagle o mlodocianych mocno a nie o doroslym) 1. mastka nie jest brudna, niebezpieczna i nie ma prawa jechac 08.gif CYTAT `Is smegma produced by the intact penis harmful? No. In the 19th century when doctors were looking for medical justifications for circumcision using methods that any good scientist would recognize as flawed today they thought smegma may be a carcinogen, but this has since been proven false, despite how occasionally it may resurface in a pro-circumcision article. The AAP has this to say about smegma: "When the foreskin separates from the glans, skin cells are shed. This begins in childhood and continues through the teen years. New skin cells regularly replace the ones that are shed. Since this shedding takes place in a closed space - with the foreskin covering the glans - the shed skin cells work their way along the penis through the tip of the foreskin. These discarded skin cells may look like whitish lumps, resembling pearls, under the foreskin. These whitish lumps are called smegma. Specialized glands, called Tyson's Glands, located under the foreskin are largely inactive in childhood. At puberty, Tyson's Glands produce an oily substance, which, when mixed with skin cells, make up adult smegma. Adult smegma serves as a protective lubricator for the glans." hxxp://www.angelfire.com/ca5/intact/hygiene.html CYTAT In the mid 19th century British and American doctors were hoping to ‘pathologize’ childbirth and infancy, converting these natural events into diseases, thus marginalizing their ancient competitors — midwives and doulas. They invented and marketed the notion that irritation or stimulation of sensitive tissue like genital mucosa caused disease to appear in a distant part of the body. They called this pre-germ disease theory ‘Reflex Neurosis.’ This was elaborately concocted puritanical nonsense and fraud, of course. But as well as conveniently blaming the patient for causing his own health problems, reflex neurosis spawned a whole litany of pseudo-medical interventions including circumcision, clitoridectomy, and forced foreskin retraction. Any amputation, desensitization, drying, or aggressive cleaning of sensitive genital tissue was, according to this theory, a way to discourage genital exploration and thus thwart disease. Especially widely-promoted was the notion that a (wholly imaginary) build-up of smegma, a protective emollient both boys and girls naturally produce, might cause irritation. This could draw a child’s attention to his penis or her clitoris, so goes the theory, which he or she might then touch. This stimulation was thought to cause the child to develop tuberculosis, insanity, blindness, idiocy, hip injuries, unusual hair growth, and 20 other conditions. icon_cool.gif (Yes, this is the exact source of all those modern locker-room jokes.) Thus parents were advised to regularly retract their boy’s foreskin and scrub out this ‘dangerous’ substance, or circumcise the boy so it could not possibly accumulate. Doctors advised parents, as late as the 1930’s, to tie fingerless mittens on girls before bedtime, to prevent inadvertent ‘touching.’ This pre-germ theory — patently bizarre, cruel, stupid, even perverted — has not yet died out. It still lingers, in various watered-down versions, passed around among generations of physicians and nurses ‘folklorically,’ who then teach it to parents. While you read this, (and I wish I were just kidding) likely someone at the Mayo Clinic is forcibly retracting a hapless little boy or advising the parents to do so at each bath. A family medical ‘advisor’ sponsored by the Mayo Clinic and on the shelf in 2007, urges as much. 37.gif The genuine, proper, (European, Asian, or pre-1860) infant hygiene is astonishingly simple to explain and easier to follow, and this comes from a kindly member of our international physicians’ organization hxxp://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org...retraction.html Teraz o higienie z naciskiem na wczesne dziecinstwo: CYTAT How easy is the intact penis to keep clean? We've already established that parents do not need to retract their son's foreskins to clean under when he's a baby and toddler and that he should be the first to retract his own foreskin and then he can wash it himself. But those in the pro-circumcision camp still try to say that it is too difficult for a boy to keep himself clean once he becomes old enough. Again, the AAP ( sprecyzuje ze chodzi o Amerykanska Akademie Pediatryczna czyli ichniejsza wyrocznie niejako) says: "The uncircumcised penis is easy to keep clean. When your son is an infant, bathe or sponge him frequently and wash all body parts, including the genitals. You do not need to do any special cleansing, such as with cotton swabs or antiseptics. Simply wash the head of the penis and the inside fold of the foreskin with soap and warm water. Remember, do not try to forcibly retract the foreskin." hxxp://www.angelfire.com/ca5/intact/hygiene.html CYTAT BASIC MALE ANATOMY At birth the penis is anatomically immature and still developing. The foreskin adheres to the glans, (the little firefighter’s hat at the end) because of a natural connective membrane, the balano-preputial lamina. This membrane or synechia is apparently nature’s method of protecting the highly nerve-supplied portion of the maturing penis from feces, the ammonia in urine, and other irritants and pathogens. This membrane can take as long as 18 years or more to disappear allowing retraction. The mean age for natural foreskin retraction without pain or trauma is 10.4 years.1 Some men never see their glans until they are in the 20’s. Any time is normal, there is no need to see the glans early, and rushing the timetable for retraction is not necessary or desirable as no special hygiene is needed. Indeed, pre-adolescent boys need no internal cleaning whatsoever, and to suggest toddlers need to be retracted at each bath, or should be taught to do so themselves, demonstrates stunning ignorance and cruelty. NO SPECIAL CLEANING WAS EVER NEEDED hxxp://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org...retraction.html CYTAT CORRECT HYGIENE FOR THE BABY AND CHILD We’ve all heard it said, sometime, that “hygiene of the uncircumcised child is so complicated.” In fact, as all paediatric organizations indicate, nothing could be further from the truth. It is indeed this single outdated myth (practically a superstition) — to the effect that the parent must forcibly “open” the child’s foreskin to cleanse it — that has been the source of the majority of foreskin problems (infections, inflammations, iatrogenic phimosis, paraphimosis) in boys in North America over the course of the twentieth century. In fact, correct hygiene of the infant’s and child’s intact (non-circumcised) penis is very simple. Different from that of the adult, yes; but no less simple. There is thus no need to resort to any “complicated” manipulation whatsoever. It is neither necessary nor advisable (indeed now unadvised) to expose and clean the parts of the inner foreskin and the glans surface that have not yet separated, naturally, one from the other . hxxp://www.infocirc.org/hyge.htm Tak, tak, bez grzebania i usuwania jej, wymywania itd- wrecz z naciskiem na unikanie tego typu praktyk jako szkodliwych. 2. Jesli jedzie to znak ze sie cos dzieje (infekcja bakteryjna czy grzybiczna) i w tym momencie tym ktorzy czuja ze dziecku jedzie, zwazywszy na powyzsze, radzilabym sie zastanowic i dociec dlaczego. zrodlo- Birley`s study: hxxp://www.cirp.org/library/disease/balanitis/birley/ powyzsze zrodlo traktuje tez o przyczynach infekcji i powstawania innych problemow, w tym balanitis (zapalenia zoledzi)w przypadku ktorego jedynym rozwiazaniem pozniej moze byc przymusowe obrzezanie w doroslym wieku. icon_rolleyes.gif I jeszcze sposob na dorobienie sie (dziecku raczej) prawdziwej stulejki w doroslym wieku: CYTAT Roberton's Textbook of Neonatology also warns: “Forcible retraction in infancy tears the tissues of the tip of the foreskin causing scarring, and is the commonest cause of **genuine phimosis** later in life`` Avery's Neonatology, issues a further warning : 'Forcible retraction of the foreskin tends to produce tears in the preputial orifice resulting in scarring that may lead to pathologic [i.e., in this case, iatrogenic, or physician-induced] phimosis.” Similarly, Osborne's Pediatrics notes that phimosis or paraphimosis is “usually secondary to infection or trauma from trying to reduce a tight foreskin…” Moreover, they later state, “circumferential scarring of the foreskin is not a normal condition and will generally not resolve.” hxxp://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org...retraction.html The inelasticity may create phimosis, an unnatural tightness of the foreskin to the glans which will not fade with time and may require medical intervention. The child with an inelastic foreskin may suffer periodic paraphimosis emergencies, or trapping of the foreskin behind the glans corona when retracted, as the glans may become strangled and ischemic (deprived of oxygenated blood) unless iced down to shrink the swelling. “...foreskin retraction should NEVER be forced. Until separation occurs, do NOT try to pull the foreskin back - especially an infant's. Forcing the foreskin to retract before it is ready may severely harm the penis and cause pain, bleeding and tears in the skin. " (From the AAP bulletin, "Care of the Uncircumcised Penis"). American Academy of Pediatrics oraz dodatkowo mocno klarownie ze powtorze: We’ve all heard it said, sometime, that “hygiene of the uncircumcised child is so complicated.” In fact, as all paediatric organizations indicate, nothing could be further from the truth. It is indeed this single outdated myth (practically a superstition) — to the effect that the parent must forcibly “open” the child’s foreskin to cleanse it — that has been the source of the majority of foreskin problems (infections, inflammations, iatrogenic phimosis, paraphimosis) in boys in North America over the course of the twentieth century *i wracajac do ww badania Birley`a: Otoz wynika z niego(oraz rozlicznych statystyk) ze najglowniejsza przyczyna zarowno infekcji jak i stulejek i potrzeby zabiegow (czesto nawet usuwania napletka chirurgicznie jest nic innego jak grzebanie przy nim. I bynajmniej nie przez dziecko a przez: >lekarza jakiegos `madrego` >rodzica za porada tegoz lekarza badz z wlasnej nadgorliwosci czy kto wie czego. Znowu tu odsylam do powyzszego linku z rozleglym opisem badania i wszelkich jego aspektow. Czyli mozemy to sobie do przyslowiowej u... smierci dywagowac co kto lubi i wyciagac przypadki mniej lub bardziej szczesliwe po obu stronach, ale jesli o konkrety chodzi, to sytuacja przedstawia sie jak powyzej - grzebanie, odciaganie, sprawdzanie jest zbedne a wrecz szkodliwe I jesli wystepuje epidemia stulejek, infekcji, przyklejen czy czego tam jeszcze to grzebanie jest wlasnie najglowniejsza przyczyna. Drugi aspekt poruszony w powyzszym badaniu (i kilku innych) to kwestia nadmiernej higieny jako przyczyny infekcji i uszkodzen. Tak tak znowu. Statystycznie przyczyna lwiej czesci infekcji i stulejek jest wlasnie grzebanie (przez rodzicow badz lekarza ) oraz nadgorliwa higiena. Znowu w tej kwestii odsylam do badania Birley`a ktore jest teraz podstawa jesli o fakty i oficjalne zalecenia chodzi. hxxp://www.cirp.org/library/disease/balanitis/birley/ Edi z perspektywy powyzszego to te pytania troche jakby malo wnoszace do tematu, ale jesli bardzo chcesz to czemu nie? Odpowiem. icon_smile.gif Niech bedzie i troche anecdotal evidence, a co tam icon_smile.gif Zaznaczam jednak ze ja sie nie opieram wybitnie na wlasnych i okolicznych doswiadczeniach (tu musialabym jeszcze zaliczyc do grona sukcesow doswiadczenie malzonka osobistego ktoremu tez nikt nie grzebal i problemow nie mial zadnych i ma sie dobrze, dziekuje ;-P) Jednak prosze bardzo: -dziecko starsze, na ile mi wiadomo, bylo anatomicznie bezproblemowe, ale szczerze mowiac nie zaglebialam sie w to nigdy ( a moze problemu nie szukalam icon_wink.gif ) i lekarz tez nie ( jedne ogledziny przez pediatre jeszcze w szpitalu, nastepne chyba w okolicy 6go tyg na przegladzie i finito. wiecej nie bylo. Ja nie sygnalizowalam zadnego problemu, dziecko tez nie wiec i lekarz nie szukal dziury w calym na zapas. W/g niektorych kryteriow, i rodzice i lekarze zaniedbali go karygodnie icon_lol.gif Ma sie dobrze icon_wink.gif -dziecko mlodsze nalezy do tej nielicznej grupy `szczesliwcow`(jakies 5% rzekomo) ktorzy rodza sie z juz odklejonym napletkiem. Surprise, surprise... z braku tejze naturalnej ochrony w wieku pieluchowym pojawialo sie z tej racji zaczerwienienie nawet przy dosc krotkim kontakcie z mokra pielucha. Trzeba bylo czesto zmieniac, jazda w foteliku dluzej niz godzine byla wrecz niemowliwa. Szczesliwie nic powaznego (dzieki naszejz apobiegliwosci raczej) ale jeszcze jeden dowod na to ze natura glupia nie jest i nie bez powodu to, co przytwierdzone, jest na danym etapie przytwierdzone i tak ma byc i zostac. Nie trzeba jej popedzac bo tak nam sie widzi. Wiekszosc w kazdym razie ma przytwierdzone. Mi sie ` w nagrode` icon_wink.gif trafil wyjatek od reguly no ale tez przezylismy ;-P Trzeba bylo jednak bardziej uwazac niz w przypadku starszego, ktory tego rodzaju problemow nie mial ( `pomimo` (hehe) braku odciagania, wymywania i cudowania) Musialabym jeszcze szczegolowy wywiad przeprowadzic ze znajomymi mi okolicznymi matkami ( z ktorych zadna odciagania `profilaktycznego` nie praktykuje) i te pseudo-statystyke pociagnac. Jednak wystarcza mi ze zadna sie na napletek nieodciagany i nieumyty od srodka nigdy nie uskarzala, wiec przyjmuje za fakt oczywisty ze nie mialy (ich dzieci ani one) w tej kwestii problemow. No i jesli mam juz porownywac te 2 pseudostatystyki, to tak, stwierdzam, ze wsrod polskich matek ten temat jest bardzo zywy i smiem twierdzic ze to w zw. z namnazajaca sie iloscia problemow zw. z odciaganiem wlasnie. W przypadku tubylczych tematu nie ma. Z reka na sercu, nie slyszalam nigdy by sie ktoras znajoma tubylcza rodzicielka uskarzala ze jej maloletni ma problemy z tym zwiazane. Nie slyszalam tez o innych problemach typu stulejki odklejanie czy jak to sie zwie, o infekcjach i zabiegach chirurgicznych tez nie jakos ;-P Ale zostawmy pseudostatystyki i wrocmy do faktow A takim faktem (nie wyssana z palca teoria i absolutnie nie moja osobista) jest kwestia naturalnego samooczyszczania sie. NO SPECIAL CLEANING WAS EVER NEEDED Let us think like evolutionary biologists for a moment. If such cleaning were actually necessary, would any of us exist? Surely our forefathers would have died of infection in childhood, long before they could reproduce. Our primate predecessors were unlikely to head down to a nearby river every day to scrub their childrens’ genitals, and evolution would quickly eliminate those who needed such care. Only those not needing genital cleansing would have survived. We are those survivors. In reality, urine, in the absence of a urinary tract infection, is a sterile liquid. The foreskin of infants, toddlers, pre-school and elementary school boys is flushed out with this sterile liquid at every urination. No further cleaning is necessary. The mucosal genitalia, like the mucosal eyes and mouth, are self-cleaning and self-defending, and it could not possibly be otherwise. Moreover, mid-19th century British and American boys (and girls) did not suddenly develop filthy genitals which needed aggressive hygiene after their ancestors, for hundreds of generations, survived nicely on benign neglect. hxxp://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org...retraction.html hxxp://www.cirp.org/library/hygiene/ Parents and caregivers should wash only the outside.7 10 No attempt should be made to retract the foreskin.10 14 15 "Leave it alone" is good advice.7 8 Only the child will know when his foreskin can be retracted without pain and trauma,10 so the first person to retract the foreskin should be the child himself.14 15 The foreskin protects the glans penis from the ammonia that is formed by chemical action in the diaper (nappie). One may see some redness of the foreskin from exposure to ammonia while an infant is still in diapers (nappies).15 Frequent diaper changes may prevent this. In severe cases, a protective barrier ointment may be necessary. oraz o sensie takiego zabezpieczenia: Notes Pediatrics, a reference text by Rudolph and Hoffman: "The prepuce, [or] foreskin, is normally not retractile at birth. The ventral surface of the foreskin is naturally fused to the glans of the penis. At age 6 years, 80 percent of boys still do not have a fully retractile foreskin. By age 17 years, however, 97 to 99 percent of uncircumcised males have a fully retractile foreskin. Natural separation between the glans and the ventral surface of the foreskin occurs with the secretion of skin oils and desquamation of epithelial cells, [or] smegma.” hxxp://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org...retraction.html oraz o przykrych skutkach prob odwodzenia napletka ( zwlaszcza u niemowlat) Roberton's Textbook of Neonatology also warns: “Forcible retraction in infancy tears the tissues of the tip of the foreskin causing scarring, and is the commonest cause of genuine phimosis later in life.” Avery's Neonatology, issues a further warning : 'Forcible retraction of the foreskin tends to produce tears in the preputial orifice resulting in scarring that may lead to pathologic [i.e., in this case, iatrogenic, or physician-induced] phimosis.” Similarly, Osborne's Pediatrics notes that phimosis or paraphimosis is “usually secondary to infection or trauma from trying to reduce a tight foreskin…” Moreover, they later state, “circumferential scarring of the foreskin is not a normal condition and will generally not resolve.” hxxp://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org...retraction.html I duzo wiecej o przyczynach powstawania stulejki u dzieci - ewidentnie jako glowna i najwazniejsza podaje sie grzebanie w celu odciagania wiec naprawde warto sie zastanowic jaka to ruska ruletkie sie uprawia grzebiac wlasnie ;-P Note on paraphimosis (“foreskin stuck behind the glans”) Paraphimosis in the child is caused, almost all of the time, by the forced retraction of the child’s foreskin by a parent, a misinformed health professional, any other caregiver of the child’s, or, rarely, by the child himself. Paraphimosis in childhood is caused when a foreskin still characterized by a physiologic (or normal) phimosis — that is, where the preputial ring is still in the developmental stage where it is narrow and not yet able to easily be drawn back and forth over the ridge of the glans (the coronal ridge) — is retracted by force behind the glans and then cannot be easily (or at all) brought back to its forward position. When this occurs, the glans fills up with blood (because of the tightness of the preputial ring behind the glans), which renders forward re-placement of the preputial ring and foreskin even more difficult. In such an instance, compress the glans between your thumb and your (straightened or bent) index finger, more or less strongly, depending upon the need. This maneuver will empty the glans of its blood (for the glans is like a sponge), thereby diminishing its swollen size and making it possible to bring the foreskin forward again (Illingworth, 1983). In the rare instance that such manual compression does not succeed in resolving the situation, visit an emergency department where the use of ice in a rubber glove (Houghton, 1973) or an injection of hyaluronidase into the region (DeVries, 1996) can be deployed in order to reduce the swelling and resolve the paraphimosis. Surgery should the last resort, as these other methods, in cases of emergency, are usually successful. Paraphimosis can also affect the very small percentage of adults in whom the preputial ring remains, due to a true phimosis (see below), too tight to easily be brought back and forth over the coronal ridge. In the case of adult paraphimosis, the same means of resolving it as mentioned above can be employed, as well as steroidal creams to resolve the phimosis. <hxxp://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis>. Encyclopedia > Forcible retraction of the foreskin Forcible retraction of the foreskin, sometimes called premature retraction, refers to the retraction of the foreskin (prepuce) in infants or young adults, where the penis and the prepuce have not yet sufficiently developed to allow for full or partial retraction. This may be painful, and can sometimes damage to the glans and mucous inner tissue of the foreskin. It is sometimes performed by doctors who may be unfamiliar with the uncircumcised penis in general, and is a necessary step in infant circumcision. The unretractible infant foreskin is often misdiagnosed as pathological phimosis. The Male Anatomy The foreskin or prepuce is a retractable double-layered fold of skin and mucous membrane that covers the glans penis and protects the urinary meatus when the penis is not erect. ... Biology of the infant foreskin Also see Phimosis and Foreskin Phimosis is a medical condition in which the foreskin of the penis of an uncircumcised male cannot be fully retracted. ... The Male Anatomy The foreskin or prepuce is a retractable double-layered fold of skin and mucous membrane that covers the glans penis and protects the urinary meatus when the penis is not erect. ... It has been widely recognized by the medical profession for most of the 20th century that normal male infants have foreskins which are incompletely separated from the epithelium of the glans penis. They cannot be easily retracted. McGregor reports that many physicians have difficulties distinguishing between this and pathological phimosis.[1] [2] In zootomy, epithelium is a tissue composed of a layer of cells. ... Glans penis. ... At birth, the foreskin is usually still fused with the glans . As childhood progresses the foreskin and the glans gradually separate, a process that may not be complete until the age of 17. A Danish survey reported that average age of first foreskin retraction in Denmark is 10.4 years. Marques reported that 1% of boys cannot retract their foreskins by age 14.[3] [4] [5] [6] In children, the foreskin covers the glans completely but in adults this need not be so. In a German study, Schoeberlein found that about 50% of young men had full coverage of the glans, 42% had partial coverage, and in the remaining 8%, the glans was uncovered. After adjusting for circumcision, he stated that in 4% of the young men the foreskin had spontaneously atrophied (shrunk). About 2 percent of males have a non-retractile foreskin throughout life, although this does not necessarily mean it is a pathological phimosis. Wright emphasizes that the first person to retract the boy’s foreskin should be the boy himself.[7] Pathology (in ancient Greek pathos = pain/pation and logos = word) is the study of diseases. ... Phimosis is a medical condition in which the foreskin of the penis of an uncircumcised male cannot be fully retracted. ... Prevalence and consequences Forcible retraction may lead to bleeding, scarring, pathological phimosis or paraphimosis, and often pain. Adhesions after forcible retraction, especially in infants, can fuse the foreskin with itself or the glans, leading to skin bridges. The Canadian Pediatric Society poses the question of whether increased UTI and balanitis rates in uncircumcised male infants may be caused by forced premature retraction.[8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Bleeding is the loss of blood from the body. ... Phimosis is a medical condition in which the foreskin of the penis of an uncircumcised male cannot be fully retracted. ... Paraphimosis is a medical condition where the foreskin becomes trapped behind the glans penis, and cannot retract to its normal flaccid position covering the glans penis. ... Pain is an unpleasant sensation which may be associated with actual or potential tissue damage and which may have physical and emotional components. ... UTI is an acronym for Urinary Tract Infection and the calculator programming group United-TI. ... Balanitis is inflammation of the glans penis. ... Forcible retraction happens in a variety of occasions. Most well known is the forcible retraction by doctors. Spilsbury suggests that doctors may be likely to confuse congenital (and normal) infant phimosis and the fused glans and foreskin with pathological phimosis.[13] Cooper reported resolution of a number of problems, including balanoposthitis, dysuria, and phimosis through retraction under anaesthesia.[14] Others have reported similar results in treating older children.[15] [16] [17] MacKinlay reported on breaking the adhesions between foreskin and glans with topical anaesthetic, thus achieving full retractibility.[18] Griffiths reported: Between March, 1973 and November, 1980 we treated 161 patients in this way, achieving complete separation in 150 and partial separations in 11. Complications were severe trauma in 9 and slight discomfort in 15. 2 mothers fainted. Apart from the 4 failures, the procedure had to be repeated in 4 children and paraphimosis was recorded in 1.[19] Forcible retraction may also be done by caretakers. Osborn reported that mothers are often advised by their doctors to retract the child's foreskin. Griffiths reported that children may be advised to gently retract the foreskin themselves.[20] [21] The American Academy of Pediatrics caution parents not to retract their son's foreskin, but suggest that once he reaches puberty, he should retract and gently wash with soap and water. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians as well as the Canadian Pediatric Society emphasize that the infant foreskin should be left alone and requires no special care.[22] The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is an organization of pediatricians. ... hxxp://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/F...of-the-foreskin I tu... wracajac znowu do pytania Edi... no coz, wyglada na to ze nie mialam dziecka ze stulejka, przyklejeniem czy innym dosc powszechnym na tym forum problemem i wynika z powyzszego ze zawdzieczam to w glownej mierzenie losowi icon_wink.gif a sobie samej 08.gif a raczej lekarzowi i innym zrodlom tubylczym ktore nie naklanialy mnie do odciagania czy innych cudow ani tez zaden z panow dohtorow 21.gif nie probowal tego robic osobiscie czy z jakiejs chorej ciekawosci sprawdzac czy juz sie da odwiesc nienie.gif I w swietle powyzszych informacji, smiem tez twierdzic ze chlopcy ze stulejka i reszta problemow zawdzieczaja je najprawdopodobniej albo lekarzowi albo mamusi ktora tegoz lekarza posluchala. icon_rolleyes.gif .................................................................. Osobny temat ( i tu odnosnie *) to to, czy lekarz potrafi zdiagnozowac rzeczywisty ( nie wyimaginowany) problem wrodzony (znikomy %) zanim narobi dodatkowej szkody. Otoz w/g wielu zrodel, hamerykanscy lekarze icon_cool.gif (zwlaszcza plci meskiej) podobno niekoniecznie sa w tym mocni. A wrecz czesto widza icon_cool.gif problem. A to z racji osobistego doswiadczenia (jego braku raczej)w efekcie powszechnego w tym kraju obrzezania (nie z przyczyn religijnych) Znaczna wiekszosc po prostu nie ma bladego pojecia jak sie obchodzic z napletkiem bo go od urodzenia niemal nie posiadaja. W zw. z tym rowniez zyja w przekonaniu ze ten zabieg byl konieczny, nieunikniony i ze ma wylacznie zalety icon_cool.gif A gdy juz ten napletek istnieje, to niehybnie ciagle z nim cos nie tak i predzej czy pozniej i tak trzeba bedzie ciac albo na sile odwodzic. Male doctors, who were born in America in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, are almost invariably men who were circumcised at birth. Consequently, they have no personal knowledge of the foreskin—a normal component of male anatomy! They are dependent upon what ever information they received at medical school or what they can learn from medical textbooks. The medical textbooks, in many instances, are written by circumcised doctors and contain incorrect information. As a result, the public is most likely to receive incorrect information on foreskin care from medical practititioners. The notion that little boys or girls need aggressive genital hygiene is medical delusion and invented fraud. A few modern English-language medical books, mostly from outside the USA, have this anatomy and the related hygiene correct. Unfortunately, of the 40-odd medical, nursing and parent-advice books we at D.O.C. have surveyed, only FOUR give the proper advice. The rest regurgitate 19th century puritanical folklore, a sad commentary. Consider: in 2006 D.O.C. conducted a survey of medical students, residents and physicians at an American Academy of Family Practice, AAFP, medical convention. Of the 113 we surveyed, exactly THREE (2.6%) understood this basic anatomy. Some of these young medically trained parents-to-be clung to laughable myths directly traceable to the pseudo-medical frauds of the 1860’s. (Which makes one wonder: what else in 21st century training about medical care for children is based on folklore rather than world-class science or bioethics?) One medical text, Avery's Neonatology, (2005:1088) correctly suggests one reason why these ‘misdiagnoses’ of the boy’s natural membrane occur: “Because circumcision is so common in the United States, the natural history of the preputial development has been lost, and one must depend on observations made in countries in which circumcision is usually not practiced.” Notes Pediatrics, a reference text by Rudolph hxxp://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org...retraction.html (w powyzszym linku sa jeszcze informacje co robic w przypadku gdy doszlo do uszkodzenia w wyniku odciagania (pomijajac zaskarzenie rzeznika icon_rolleyes.gif ) by nie doszlo do powstania zrostow, infekcji i innych wymienionych problemow) I tak ich zdaniem stworzony przez nature napletek to samiutkie problemy i najlepiej sie go pozbyc i odslonic to co pod nim zeby juz od samego poczatku porzadnie tam wymyc icon_rolleyes.gif . A jesli juz nie usunac to chociaz od poczatku odslaniac systematycznie zeby ten naturalny 21.gif proces maksymalnie przyspieszyc ( cos jak porod z oxytocyna icon_cool.gif ) Bo przeciez trzeba tam UMYC!!!! icon_cool.gif Ano nie trzeba. A nawet nie powinno sie. Ale coz. Nie pierwszy i nie ostatni raz cywilizacja wymyslila rozne formy tortur dla ciala, nie tylko w tych rejonach. Niektore calkiem sensowne, wiele jednak niekoniecznie a nawet zdecydowanie nie. Obrzezanie czy odciaganie napletka to ta druga kategoria. I ja bynajmniej(czy lekarze moich dzeici) sobie powyzszego nie wydumalam icon_cool.gif Skutkiem niewiedzy i braku osobistego doswiadczenia ze strony obrzezanych lekarzy sa tez bledne diagnozy: Failure to correctly identify the normal connective foreskin membrane of youth and to misdiagnose it as an artificial, unnatural ‘adhesion’ needing surgical attention is another, widespread, medical fraud. Literally millions of older toddlers in the US have endured painful and destructive forced retractions –or worse – post-natal circumcision with or without anesthesia– based on this ignorance. It is the genesis of the circumcision marketing mantra that ‘he’ll only need it later’ and the source of every family’s story of their Uncle Ernie’s painful circumcision at age 6 years he is only too happy to remind everyone of, (and which was 99.99% likely to have been an outright fraud icon_cool.gif skad my to znamy? icon_wink.gif I jeszcze dotycz pytania Gosi o to kiedy naturalne calkowite oddzielenie napletka moze nastapic: When does the foreskin become retractable? There is no "right" time for the foreskin to become retractable. Two things must happen before the foreskin becomes retractable and each usually takes many years.1 The fusion between the glans penis and the inner surface of the foreskin must become separate. The narrow tip that prevents retraction must become large enough in diameter to permit retraction. The time varies widely from individual to individual. Complete separation of the foreskin from the glans may not occur until after puberty.1 20 About 44 percent of boys have a fully retractable prepuce by age 10, by age 16, 90 percent, by age 18, 99 percent.1 hxxp://www.infocirc.org/hyge.htm Srednia wieku to bodajze 10.4 lat (tak Holendrzy wyliczyli icon_wink.gif )ale sporo 6latkow ma juz to za soba. Przynajmniej w znacznej czesci jesli nie calkowicie. I jeszcze a propos porownan icon_wink.gif W tym przypadku autorstwa pewnego historyka medycyny ktory porownuje uporczywe dazenie do wymywanie tego co pod napletkiem ( tu sposobem jest obzrezanie ale w kontekscie naszej dyskusji i odwodzenie mozna podciagnac bo cel ten sam ;-P) do przerywania blony dziewwiczej u dziewczynek w celu dokladnego podmycia haha) A medical historian writing in 2005, notes the following about the invented and erroneous suggestion of need for aggressive male infant hygiene, and the irony that females (narrowly) escaped similar treatment: “To appreciate the scale of the error, consider its equivalent in women: it would be as if doctors had decided that the intact hymen in infant girls was a congenital defect known as 'imperforate hymen' arising from 'arrested development' and hence needed to be artificially broken in order to allow the interior of the vagina to be washed out regularly to ensure hygiene.” (Dr. Robert Darby, A Surgical Temptation, The Demonization of the Foreskin and the Rise of Circumcision in Britain, Univ. of Chicago Press, 2005:235.) hxxp://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org...retraction.html Zalaczam jeszcze bardziej szczegolowe wyjasnienia w tym temacie ( m in o blednych diagnozach i kiedy naprawde mozna mowic o problemie, o stulejkach nabytych(przez odciaganie), fizjologicznych) Byc moze komus sie przyda. Oraz o metodach gdy rzeczywiscie jest problem. In the child, by contrast, one should not automatically expect the foreskin to be retractable; it becomes so only over time, spontaneously and very gradually, without any need for this growth process to be precipitated (see below). The vast majority of males are born with the foreskin fused to the glans, with the development of separation between glans and foreskin a process that continues long after birth. Thus, the forced retracting of the child’s foreskin, or any other manipulation intended to make the baby’s or child’s foreskin retractable by force (as, for instance, the “breaking of adhesions”) is now recognized by the highest authorities in these matters — the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), etc. — as being not only unnecessary, but also potentially harmful. Such a manipulation results in the forced, premature separation of two surfaces — the inner foreskin lining and the surface of the glans — which are not yet developmentally ready to be separated, one from the other, and exposed. Forced retraction of a child’s foreskin can cause enormous pain, bleeding, and tears in the skin which can result in scarring and other reactions such as a reduction of foreskin suppleness — called iatrogenic (meaning ‘caregiver-induced’) phimosis — and paraphimosis (see more on this latter, below). NOTE: Iatrogenic phimosis is to be distinguished from physiological phimosis, a normal characteristic of child anatomy, described below. Unfortunately, many people, included misinformed health professionals, are working under widespread outdated misconceptions as regards the normal course of development of the child’s penis [endnote 1] and are not aware of the advice of the CPS, the AAP, and other medical organizations regarding correct and incorrect (harmful) hygiene practices for the child. All too often, parents receive the flawed advice, from their health professional or others, to force their son’s foreskin back (before it has naturally separated and become retractable). Given the present state of persistent widespread misconceptions about the foreskin, it is very likely people you yourself know — aunts, mothers-in-law, neighbours, colleagues, friends, etc. — are labouring under these myths, having been misinformed (albeit with perhaps the best of intentions) by their medical practitioner, years ago, or even today! Normal characteristics and development of the child’s penis The baby’s foreskin is characterized by three things: it is usually non-retractable; its opening is narrow; and it extends beyond the glans, sometimes significantly. (This last aspect also frequently characterizes the foreskin of the adult.) These three aspects of the baby’s foreskin are altogether normal. Over the course of infancy and childhood, two very gradual developmental processes occur naturally and spontaneously, without any need to be precipitated by the caregiver: 1) the separation between the inner lining of the foreskin and the surface of the glans, and 2) the gradual widening and increase in elasticity of the opening (or extremity) of the foreskin, called the preputial ring (or preputial opening). The time-frame of these developmental processes can vary considerably from one child to another, this wide variation being perfectly normal. The moment that these respective processes begin, as well as the time (weeks, months, or years) they take to be completed, is different for each individual. It can take up to late adolescence for these two processes to be completed. In the course of the development of certain boys, the foreskin can be seen to balloon during urination. This is normal and indicates that the inner foreskin and the glans have begun to separate from one another, creating a space (the preputial space). This ballooning is due to the fact that the preputial opening is still narrow. This is no cause for worry, except if there is serious urinary retention whereby the urine flows drop by drop over minutes, in which case a steroidal or non-steroidal ointment or cream can be prescribed to precipitate the widening of the opening enough to attenuate this situation. Concerns without foundation: Foreskin “too narrow,” “too long,” or “redundant.” It is altogether normal that the opening of the foreskin be quite narrow at birth and for several years, and that the infant’s or child’s foreskin be non-retractable. In some children, this narrowness and unretractability will remain the case for several years, while in others the foreskin opening (preputial ring) will be elastic and the foreskin retractable by age one. All of these variations in morphology are normal. In the majority of children, as in many adults, the foreskin extends beyond the glans, sometimes significantly. In some children, this portion of the foreskin may even resemble a little ‘elephant’s trunk.’ There is nothing abnormal in this. With age, this little elephant’s trunk will come to be filled, increasingly, with the body of the penis. And if the individual was intended by nature to have, even in adulthood, a long foreskin, well, as one author put it in the British Journal of Urology: “One can never be too rich…or have too much foreskin.” Note on paraphimosis (“foreskin stuck behind the glans”) Paraphimosis in the child is caused, almost all of the time, by the forced retraction of the child’s foreskin by a parent, a misinformed health professional, any other caregiver of the child’s, or, rarely, by the child himself. Paraphimosis in childhood is caused when a foreskin still characterized by a physiologic (or normal) phimosis — that is, where the preputial ring is still in the developmental stage where it is narrow and not yet able to easily be drawn back and forth over the ridge of the glans (the coronal ridge) — is retracted by force behind the glans and then cannot be easily (or at all) brought back to its forward position. When this occurs, the glans fills up with blood (because of the tightness of the preputial ring behind the glans), which renders forward re-placement of the preputial ring and foreskin even more difficult. In such an instance, compress the glans between your thumb and your (straightened or bent) index finger, more or less strongly, depending upon the need. This maneuver will empty the glans of its blood (for the glans is like a sponge), thereby diminishing its swollen size and making it possible to bring the foreskin forward again (Illingworth, 1983). In the rare instance that such manual compression does not succeed in resolving the situation, visit an emergency department where the use of ice in a rubber glove (Houghton, 1973) or an injection of hyaluronidase into the region (DeVries, 1996) can be deployed in order to reduce the swelling and resolve the paraphimosis. Surgery should the last resort, as these other methods, in cases of emergency, are usually successful. Paraphimosis can also affect the very small percentage of adults in whom the preputial ring remains, due to a true phimosis (see below), too tight to easily be brought back and forth over the coronal ridge. In the case of adult paraphimosis, the same means of resolving it as mentioned above can be employed, as well as steroidal creams to resolve the phimosis. Consult <hxxp://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis>. Use of steroidal (or non-steroidal) creams in children Even though certain steroid creams (and some non-steroid creams) can “resolve” a physiologic phimosis in the child, there is generally no need to resort to these, to the extent that there is, in effect, nothing abnormal there requiring “resolution.” As stated earlier, having a non-retractable, tight foreskin is a normal phase of development in the child which gives way to phases of increasing retractability over the course of months or years, depending upon the individual. It is thus wiser and more appropriate to recognize the normal nature of the child’s as yet non-retractable foreskin, and to not be alarmed and worry (or alarm and worry one’s child) unnecessarily. If, however, it ever becomes necessary, for whatever reason, to precipitate the widening of the preputial opening (or preputial ring), the option of steroidal (or non-steroidal) cream use is effective and available. (If in Quebec, contact us at the Circumcision Information Resource Centre for a referral to a foreskin-knowledgeable doctor, or visit: <hxxp://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/>.) The resolution of true phimosis in the adult or late adolescent A very small percentage (1% to 2%) of boys 18 years of age remains with some degree of foreskin non-retractability. This is called phimosis, or even more properly, true phimosis. (Adult true phimosis must be distinguished from childhood physiologic phimosis, this latter representing a normal phase of development prior to the foreskin’s gradual, spontaneous separation from the glans; see above.) An adult having a phimosis and wishing to render his foreskin retractable can, by visiting the Circumcision Information and Resource Pages at <hxxp://www.cirp.org/library/treatment/phimosis/>) or by contacting us, educate himself regarding the various options at his disposal, non-surgical (steroidal cream use and gentle stretching) and surgical (skin plasties), which are generally effective in resolving phimosis. Circumcision, given that it doesn’t cure but instead amputates the foreskin, should be seen as a measure of last resort; all too often, however, uninformed practitioners deploy it as a measure of first resort. (If in Quebec, we can refer you to foreskin-knowledgeable medical practitioners familiar with the range of options.) For any supplementary information or clarification of anything contained in this pamphlet that may strike you as unclear, please feel free to contact us . We will be happy to assist you in any way we can. Endnotes: [1] The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) states that: “In general, there is inadequate recognition of the long period before the natural separation of the prepuce and the glans is complete. Some authors still refer to the presence of ‘adhesions,’ when, in fact, separation has not yet taken place; similarly, a nonretractile foreskin is sometimes incorrectly diagnosed as phimosis.” [Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal Circumcision Revisited. Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol. 154, no. 6 (March 1996): pp:769-780. Reference No. FN96-01.] See “The Problem of Incorrect Diagnosis of Phimosis,” at <hxxp://www.infocirc.org/phimosis.htm>. Sources: The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages (recommended by the British Medical Journal), <hxxp://www.cirp.org>, and its reference library, <hxxp://www.cirp.org/library/>). Endnotes: [1] The Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) states that: “In general, there is inadequate recognition of the long period before the natural separation of the prepuce and the glans is complete. Some authors still refer to the presence of ‘adhesions,’ when, in fact, separation has not yet taken place; similarly, a nonretractile foreskin is sometimes incorrectly diagnosed as phimosis.” [Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society. Neonatal Circumcision Revisited. Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol. 154, no. 6 (March 1996): pp:769-780. Reference No. FN96-01.] See “The Problem of Incorrect Diagnosis of Phimosis,” at <hxxp://www.infocirc.org/phimosis.htm>. Sources: The Circumcision Information and Resource Pages (recommended by the British Medical Journal), <hxxp://www.cirp.org>, and its reference library, <hxxp://www.cirp.org/library/>). Sorry, rozpisalam sie ale zeby to mialo rece i nogi nie moglam bardziej zwiezle. Choc zdaje sobie sprawe ze te cytaty bez tlumaczenia, dla niektorych moga byc malo pomocne. hxxp://www.maluchy.pl/forum/index.php?showtopic=58334&st=0]maluchy Malati - 2009-01-27, 15:24 Ja nigdy małemu nie majstrowałam przy napletku,Jakoś intuicyjie czułam i czuję że to nie jest konieczne.Jak narazie nie zauwazyłam żadnych nieprawidłowosci u filipka 
Jagula - 2009-01-27, 16:01 ja też nie majstrowałam ale jednak koło 7 miesiąca pojawił się stan zapalny.... Karolina - 2009-01-27, 16:34 My zostawiliśmy w spokoju, raz na jakiś czas lekko odciągamy, sprawdzamy czy dziurka się nie zawęża - była jak główka od szpilki więc bałam się o oddawanie moczu. Tobayashi - 2009-01-27, 18:44 Ja też się spotkałam ze skrajnymi szkołami, ale również intuicyjnie nic nie kombinowałam. Potężny artykuł, ale może jakoś przebrnę 
lamialuna - 2013-07-15, 23:49 troche ciezko tak duzo tekstu oagrnac sa rozne szkoly z tych nowych czeka sie do 4tego roku zycia albo i pozniej... chyba ze boli przy sikaniu itd moj 3letni szkrab sie chyba jednak bedzie kwalifikowal na zabieg, normalnie jest git malina, ale jak sie budzi z malym na bacznosc to marudzi przeraza mnie zabieg bo tutaj w Irlandii robia na pelnym znieczuleniu... wiec jeszcze walka o nieszczepienie dziecka... a co za tym idzie strach ze wlasnie ze szpitala dostanie jakiegos syfa... moze ktos slyszal o jakiejs prywatnej klinice w PL gdzie moznaby to wykonac? żuk - 2013-07-16, 08:43 lamialuna, lepiej w znieczuleniu niż jak w PL niektórzy odciągają na żywca i na chama  posłuchaj jeszcze może tego: hxxp://www.mp.pl/wideo01/?id=453
Soul - 2013-07-16, 08:59 lamialuna, a kto wam oceniał, że trzeba kroić już? Bo może wcale nie trzeba..? Z Ignasiem poszliśmy do chirurga dzieciecego na konsultację, pokazać siusiaka, bo bardzo mało mu napletek odchodził. Do pediatry w ogóle nie szłam, szczególnie po obejrzeniu filmiku zalinkowanego post wcześniej (bardzo dobry i rzetelny materiał!). Wolałam posłuchać kogoś kto się zna na takich zabiegach, niż gdybającego i przypuszczającego pediatry, który nie ma z tym do czynienia w praktyce
No i się okazało, że mimo, iż faktycznie napletek nie schodzi, zaczyna się już zbierać pod nim mastka, bo nie można go oczyścić i umyć dobrze - nie jest to wcale powód do chirurgicznej ingerencji! Dostaliśmy maść na receptę, i lekarka pokazała nam jak ją wcierać z skórkę napletka, raz dziennnie. Po 2 miesiacach napletek zszedł całkiem  bez bólu, bez cięcia i hardkorowych rozwiązań..
biechna - 2013-07-16, 09:38 lamialuna, nam jeden chirurg proponował znieczulenie miejscowe, więc można i tak. Tyle, że poszliśmy jeszcze na konsultację, bo nie byłam przekonana do tego zabiegu, i inny lekarz, chirurg dziecięcy ze sporym dorobkiem, zdecydowanie odradził- dał nam tylko kilka wskazówek i generalnie nakazał zostawić synka w spokoju. Zasięgnijcie jeszcze jednej opinii może najpierw-? dort - 2013-07-16, 21:18 żuk dzięki za link do fajnego wykładu MartaJS - 2013-07-16, 21:31 żuk, bardzo ciekawy wykład, dzięki! U Stacha odciąga się częściowo, nie jest przyrośnięty, ale cała żołądź nie wychodzi jeszcze przez dziurkę. On się tyle bawi siusiakiem, że jakoś jestem spokojna 
squamish - 2013-07-17, 05:42 Tymek ma stulejke i będzie musiał być operowany ,warunek -odpieluchowanie !Częsciowe znieczulenie na dzień dzisiejszy odpada z jego temperamentem tabun ludzi musiałby go trzymać ,gryzł by i kopał i wrzeszczał masakrycznie:/Konsultowaliśmy z trzema spacjalistami i wszyscy mówią to samo i że nie ma na co czekać. Natomiast jeśli nie jest to stulejka to są maście zmiekczające i wtedy przy miejscowym znieczuleniu (te maście chyba też znieczulają) lekarz moze spróbować odciągać . mariaaleksandra - 2013-07-17, 12:49 squamish, może jeszcze skonsultuj się z innym lekarzem? Nie wiem czy to podobnie działa (ta maść) ale córeczka siostry męża (2 lata) miała ostatnio zdiagnozowane zrośnięcie warg sromowych. Chcieli ją operować, rozdzilić wargi. Po paru tygodniach smarowania problem się rozwiązał, bezoperacyjnie. biechna - 2013-07-17, 12:59 squamish, jeśli bywacie w Poznaniu, mogę Wam polecić speca do konsultacji chirurgicznej, chyba że klamka zapadła. dort - 2013-07-17, 13:22 squamish ale z tego filmu wynika, że stulejki w tak młodym wieku nie powinno się traktować chirurgicznie, bo tylko można kłopotu sobie narobić, może jeszcze gdzieś to skonsultujcie go. - 2013-07-17, 21:18 Soul, napisałam do Ciebie pw Chciałabym prosić kontakt do tej lekarki (z Trn?) i nazwę maści
squamish - 2013-07-18, 05:40 Mam już namiary od biechny dziś spróbuje zadzwonić i sie umówić.Chociaż mąż miał zabieg wiec nie wiem , wizja zabiegu/operacji mnie przeraża . Byliśmy u dwóch urologów dziecięcych w Kaliszu na NFZ i urologa ogólnego prywatnie który przyjeżdza z Poznania .Babka urolog dzieciecy tak mu ściągała na siłe że mu potem nieciekawie to spuchło i bolało przez kilka dni:/.Wszyscy mówili jednogłosnie,żeby zrobić to jak najszybciej ze względu na potencjalne stany zapalne. squamish - 2013-07-18, 05:40 Ten lekarz od biechny też przyjmuje w Toruniu
go. - 2013-07-18, 16:46 squamish, dzięki! Ścigam biechnę w takim razie:) Soul - 2013-07-18, 18:20 gosia, dostałaś PW? a maść już sprawdziłam, nazywa się Betnovate N
go. - 2013-07-19, 08:24 tak, dziękuję dziewczyny, wiem już wszystko co wiedzieć chciałam :* MartaJS - 2013-07-19, 09:08
Kiedyś chyba rżnęli bardziej rutynowo. Mój mąż jako dziecko miał też skierowania na zabieg, nie poszedł Ostatecznie oddzieliło mu się przy inicjacji seksualnej. I żyje, dzieci robi
squamish - 2013-07-19, 09:31
i miał bardzo za złe swojej matce ,że nic nie zrobiła w temacie .Dlatego to on ma bzika na tym punkcie :)Mój Tymek raczej jest w tym 1% bo ma bardzo bardzo zwężoną końcówke ale zobaczymy co powie doktor ,mamy wizyte umówioną na 10 sierpnia
lamialuna - 2013-07-19, 20:57
Niestety Irlandia jest cofnieta medycznie i tu im sie uje... ze GP i tylko GP. O masc wspominana w watkach upominam sie juz od dawna... ale oni tu guzik wiedza, GP sprawdza w necie co i jak!!! co uwazam za skandal...no coz bede probowac. To moja obserwacja, ze jak sie budzi z malym na wzwodzie to go boli wiec najwyrazniej jest za ciasno i skora powinna schodzic. Niby w artykulach pisza, ze jeszcze sie moze odkleic i emergency jest jak boli przy sikaniu. Poki co sik jest ok.... squamish - 2013-09-05, 19:59 Byliśmy u tego doktora , bardzo fajny,rzeczowy i przepisał maść:) zobaczymy jestem dobrej myśli dynia - 2013-09-05, 20:00 U nas wystarczyło tydzień smarowac maścią i jest sukces
squamish - 2013-09-05, 20:17 my, wstyd sie przyznać ,jeszcze nie zaczeliśmy bo ciągle coś  ze spokojem zaczniemy w sobote.Maść nazywa sie Betnovate C ,mamy smarować trzy razy dziennie przez 6 tygodni.U 80% chłopców są pozytywne rezulataty
|
