The present writer has seen this operation performed in one instance, and the after-results were in the highest degree satisfactory. As contrasted with circumcision, the procedure merits warm commendation; preserving the useful foreskin, and followed by a much more speedy recovery than may be expected from the former. For the lacerations which may result from forcible dilatation, small nicks with a pair of scissors are substituted. The only objection is that even this operation, trivial as it appears, is seldom necessary; and that sufficient distension of the foreskin may often be procured without any breach of surface whatever. Moreover, some confinement to bed or to the sofa is subsequently requisite; whereas, after the effects of the anæsthetic have passed off, the patient, young or old, whose foreskin has been dilated, can behave exactly as usual.[26] Mr. Jordan's operation is, however, a very useful corollary to the dilatation-method in the chronic phimosis (often associated with gout) of men in advanced life; when the parts are usually in a very gristly condition; and when, if it be found impossible to procure retraction by stretching, the contracted tissues may be advantageously nicked with scissors in the mode here indicated. FOOTNOTES: [22] For instance, Mr. Erichsen (_op. cit._) dismisses the measure with the cursory allusion of a brief paragraph; against the long and elaborate account, previously detailed, of circumcision; it is not mentioned at all in the earlier editions of his work. Ashby and Wright speak of it with great disfavour. Mr. Jacobson (_Operations of Surgery_, 1890) does not introduce it at all; possibly because hardly worthy to be dignified by the title 'operation.' [23] In adults, or in boys approaching manhood, gradual dilatation by the daily introduction of a sponge tent has been recommended. It might be resorted to in the case of an exceptionally timid and patient individual, but hardly for any other. [24] Mr. R. W. Parker (_Brit. Med. Journal_, July 19, 1879) recommends gradual dilatation with a special screw-forceps, which he has used in a considerable number of cases at the Children's Hospital, 'always with good results.' [25] In the paper above quoted, by Dr. Cruise, of Dublin (1868), that surgeon speaks of Dr. Hutton having used dressing-forceps for the cure of phimosis fifteen years previously. Very probably the adoption of that instrument for the same purpose would be found on inquiry to date back still further; and no pretension of originality can be here put forth for the advocacy of a simple common-sense practice, which must have been repeatedly resorted to by many practitioners of the past. [26] M. Faure has also described a somewhat analogous 'nicking' operation. VII SUMMARY.