Literature DB >> 16429216

Incidence of meatal stenosis following neonatal circumcision in a primary care setting.

Robert S Van Howe1.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to prospectively document the incidence of meatal stenosis in boys. The study included a consecutive sample of boys whose visit with the physician included a genital examination in a private primary care pediatric practice in rural northern Wisconsin. Meatal stenosis was diagnosed in boys from 1.94 to 12.34 years of age. The diagnosis was made in 24 of 329 circumcised boys who were Tanner I development and older than 3 years of age (7.29%, 95%CI=4.48-10.10%). Nearly all required meatotomy to resolve their symptoms. All of the boys with meatal stenosis were circumcised neonatally (exact OR=3.54, 95%CI=0.62-infinity). The ratio of circumcised boys to noncircumcised boys in this study provided 80% power to demonstrate a 21.4% difference in the incidence of meatal stenosis between circumcised and noncircumcised Tanner I boys 3 years and older. Meatal stenosis may be the most common complication following neonatal circumcision. The frequency of this complication and the need for surgical correction need to be disclosed as part of the informed consent for neonatal circumcision. A careful meatal examination is indicted in any circumcised boy with abdominal or urinary complaints.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16429216     DOI: 10.1177/000992280604500108

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Pediatr (Phila)        ISSN: 0009-9228            Impact factor:   1.168


  16 in total

1.  Newborn male circumcision.

Authors:  S Todd Sorokan; Jane C Finlay; Ann L Jefferies
Journal:  Paediatr Child Health       Date:  2015 Aug-Sep       Impact factor: 2.253

2.  Routine circumcision: the opposing view.

Authors:  Andrew E Macneily
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  Acquired urethral meatal stenosis: a rare sequel of an aggressive form of Behçet's disease.

Authors:  Soumik Ghosh; Manish Kumar; Pushpa Kumari; Adesh Kumar Gadpayle
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2013-04-29

4.  Canadian Urological Association guideline on the care of the normal foreskin and neonatal circumcision in Canadian infants (full version).

Authors:  Sumit Dave; Kourosh Afshar; Luis H Braga; Peter Anderson
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 1.862

5.  Minor procedure, major impact: Patient-reported outcomes following urethral meatotomy.

Authors:  Briony K Varda; Tanya Logvinenko; Stuart Bauer; Bartley Cilento; Richard N Yu; Caleb P Nelson
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2017-11-17       Impact factor: 1.830

6.  Surgical management of meatal stenosis with meatoplasty.

Authors:  Ming-Hsien Wang
Journal:  J Vis Exp       Date:  2010-11-30       Impact factor: 1.355

Review 7.  Review: a critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision for HIV prevention in developed countries.

Authors:  Brian J Morris; Robert C Bailey; Jeffrey D Klausner; Arleen Leibowitz; Richard G Wamai; Jake H Waskett; Joya Banerjee; Daniel T Halperin; Laurie Zoloth; Helen A Weiss; Catherine A Hankins
Journal:  AIDS Care       Date:  2012-03-28

8.  Male circumcision in the United States for the prevention of HIV infection and other adverse health outcomes: report from a CDC consultation.

Authors:  Dawn K Smith; Allan Taylor; Peter H Kilmarx; Patrick Sullivan; Lee Warner; Mary Kamb; Naomi Bock; Bos Kohmescher; Timothy D Mastro
Journal:  Public Health Rep       Date:  2010 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.792

9.  Rates of adverse events associated with male circumcision in U.S. medical settings, 2001 to 2010.

Authors:  Charbel El Bcheraoui; Xinjian Zhang; Christopher S Cooper; Charles E Rose; Peter H Kilmarx; Robert T Chen
Journal:  JAMA Pediatr       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 16.193

10.  Circumcision.

Authors:  Poonam Puri; Joginder Kumar; V Ramesh
Journal:  Indian J Sex Transm Dis AIDS       Date:  2010-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.