Article

A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise?

School of Medical Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
BMC Pediatrics (Impact Factor: 1.92). 02/2012; 12:20. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2431-12-20
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Circumcision is a common procedure, but regional and societal attitudes differ on whether there is a need for a male to be circumcised and, if so, at what age. This is an important issue for many parents, but also pediatricians, other doctors, policy makers, public health authorities, medical bodies, and males themselves.
We show here that infancy is an optimal time for clinical circumcision because an infant's low mobility facilitates the use of local anesthesia, sutures are not required, healing is quick, cosmetic outcome is usually excellent, costs are minimal, and complications are uncommon. The benefits of infant circumcision include prevention of urinary tract infections (a cause of renal scarring), reduction in risk of inflammatory foreskin conditions such as balanoposthitis, foreskin injuries, phimosis and paraphimosis. When the boy later becomes sexually active he has substantial protection against risk of HIV and other viral sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and oncogenic human papillomavirus, as well as penile cancer. The risk of cervical cancer in his female partner(s) is also reduced. Circumcision in adolescence or adulthood may evoke a fear of pain, penile damage or reduced sexual pleasure, even though unfounded. Time off work or school will be needed, cost is much greater, as are risks of complications, healing is slower, and stitches or tissue glue must be used.
Infant circumcision is safe, simple, convenient and cost-effective. The available evidence strongly supports infancy as the optimal time for circumcision.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
259 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Male circumcision confers protection against HIV, sexually transmitted infections, and urinary tract infections. Compared with circumcision of postneonates (>28 days), circumcision of neonates is associated with fewer complications and usually performed with local rather than general anesthesia. We assessed circumcision of commercially insured males during the neonatal or postneonatal period. METHODS: We analyzed 2010 MarketScan claims data from commercial health plans, using procedural codes to identify circumcisions performed on males aged 0 to 18 years, and diagnostic codes to assess clinical indications for the procedure. Among circumcisions performed in the first year of life, we estimated rates for neonates and postneonates. We estimated the percentage of circumcisions by age among males who had circumcisions in 2010, and the mean payment for neonatal and postneonatal procedures. RESULTS: We found that 156 247 circumcisions were performed, with 146 213 (93.6%) in neonates and 10 034 (6.4%) in postneonates. The neonatal circumcision rate was 65.7%, and 6.1% of uncircumcised neonates were circumcised by their first birthday. Among postneonatal circumcisions, 46.6% were performed in males younger than 1 year and 25.1% were for nonmedical indications. The mean payment was $285 for a neonatal and $1885 for a postneonatal circumcision. CONCLUSIONS: The large number of nonmedical postneonatal circumcisions suggests that neonatal circumcision might be a missed opportunity for these boys. Delay of nonmedical circumcision results in greater risk for the child, and a more costly procedure. Discussions with parents early in pregnancy might help them make an informed decision about circumcision of their child.
    Pediatrics 10/2014; 134(5). DOI:10.1542/peds.2014-1007 · 5.30 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this review was to assess the trend in the US male circumcision rate and the impact that the affirmative 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement might have on neonatal circumcision practice. We searched PubMed for the term circumcision to retrieve relevant articles. This review was prompted by a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found a slight increase, from 79% to 81%, in the prevalence of circumcision in males aged 14 to 59 years during the past decade. There were racial and ethnic disparities, with prevalence rising to 91% in white, 76% in black, and 44% in Hispanic males. Because data on neonatal circumcision are equivocal, we undertook a critical analysis of hospital discharge data. After correction for underreporting, we found that the percentage had declined from 83% in the 1960s to 77% by 2010. A risk-benefit analysis of conditions that neonatal circumcision protects against revealed that benefits exceed risks by at least 100 to 1 and that over their lifetime, half of uncircumcised males will require treatment for a medical condition associated with retention of the foreskin. Other analyses show that neonatal male circumcision is cost-effective for disease prevention. The benefits of circumcision begin in the neonatal period by protection against infections that can damage the pediatric kidney. Given the substantial risk of adverse conditions and disease, some argue that failure to circumcise a baby boy may be unethical because it diminishes his right to good health. There is no long-term adverse effect of neonatal circumcision on sexual function or pleasure. The affirmative 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics policy supports parental education about, access to, and insurance and Medicaid coverage for elective infant circumcision. As with vaccination, circumcision of newborn boys should be part of public health policies. Campaigns should prioritize population subgroups with lower circumcision prevalence and a higher burden of diseases that can be ameliorated by circumcision.
    Mayo Clinic Proceedings 05/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.01.001 · 5.79 Impact Factor
  • 11/2014; 8(11-12):396-7. DOI:10.5489/cuaj.2490

Full-text (3 Sources)

Download
66 Downloads
Available from
Jun 6, 2014