Literature DB >> 24032062

Are physicians performing neonatal circumcisions well-trained?

Jorge Demaria1, Alym Abdulla, Julia Pemberton, Ayman Raees, Luis H Braga.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Notwithstanding the recommendations from the Canadian Pediatric Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics on the indications for neonatal circumcision, this procedure is still common in North America and throughout the world. Our purpose is not to argue whether this procedure should be done, but rather to examine who is doing it, their training, how it is performed and how can we prevent unsatisfactory results and complications. The objective is to identify what fields of knowledge require improvement and then design a teaching module to improve the outcomes of neonatal circumcision.
METHODS: A 19-question cross-sectional survey, including a visual identification item, was submitted to 87 physicians who perform neonatal circumcisions in Southwestern Ontario, Canada. To improve our response rate, study subjects were contacted in a variety of ways, including mail and fax and telephone. Once the survey was completed, we produced a surgical technique training video on using the Gomco clamp and the Plastibell techiques. A knowledge dissemination workshop was held with survey participants to discuss contraindications and the use of anesthesia and management of complications of neonatal circumcision and to evaluate the surgical technique training video. A 6-month follow-up questionnaire was completed to determine the impact of the teaching course on participants' daily practice.
RESULTS: In total, we received 54 responses (62% response rate). From these, 46 (85%) were family doctors and pediatricians, while the remaining 8 (15%) were pediatric general surgeons and urologists. The circumcisions were carried out with the Gomco clamp 35 (63%) and the Plastibell 21 (37%). No respondent admitted to learning the procedure through a structured training course. Of the non-surgeons, 19 (43%) learned to perform a circumcision from a non-surgeon colleague. A little over a third of the participants (17, 31%) were happy to perform a circumcision in a child born with a concealed penis, where circumcision is contraindicated. With respect to the early complications post-circumcision, 8 (100%) surgeons versus 29 (63%) non-surgeons felt comfortable dealing with bleeding (p = 0.046). In total, 7 (88%) surgeons versus 16 (35%) non-surgeons were comfortable dealing with urinary retention (p = 0.01). Also, 8 (100%) surgeons versus 24 (52%) non-surgeons were comfortable dealing with a wound dehiscence (p = 0.02). Moreover, 6 (75%) surgeons and 5 (10%) non-surgeons were comfortable managing meatal stenosis (p < 0.01). Five (63%) surgeons versus 15 (33%) non-surgeons were confident in dealing with a trapped penis post-circumcision (p = 0.24).
CONCLUSIONS: Our survey findings indicate that most physicians performing neonatal circumcisions in our community have received informal and unstructured training. This lack of formal instruction may explain the complications and unsatisfactory results witnessed in our pediatric urology practice. Many practitioners are not aware of the contraindications to neonatal circumcision and most non-surgeons perform the procedure without being able to handle common post-surgical complications. Based on our survey findings, we planned and carried out a formal training course to address these issues.

Entities:  

Year:  2013        PMID: 24032062      PMCID: PMC3758943          DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.200

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J        ISSN: 1911-6470            Impact factor:   1.862


  13 in total

1.  Male circumcision in Britain: findings from a national probability sample survey.

Authors:  S S Dave; K A Fenton; C H Mercer; B Erens; K Wellings; A M Johnson
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.519

2.  Residency training in neonatal circumcision: a pilot study and needs assessment.

Authors:  Brian Le; Jennie Mickelson; Dana Gossett; Dae Kim; Rachel Stork Stoltz; Sloane York; Vidit Sharma; Max Maizels
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2010-08-21       Impact factor: 7.450

3.  Neonatal circumcision model and competency evaluation for family medicine residents.

Authors:  John R Brill; Brian Wallace
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 1.756

4.  A trade-off analysis of routine newborn circumcision.

Authors:  D A Christakis; E Harvey; D M Zerr; C Feudtner; J A Wright; F A Connell
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 7.124

Review 5.  Neonatal circumcision.

Authors:  S E Lerman; J C Liao
Journal:  Pediatr Clin North Am       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.278

Review 6.  Male circumcision: assessment of health benefits and risks.

Authors:  S Moses; R C Bailey; A R Ronald
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 3.519

7.  Circumcision revision in male children.

Authors:  Mohammed A Al-Ghazo; Kamal E Banihani
Journal:  Int Braz J Urol       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.541

8.  Circumcision policy statement. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on Circumcision.

Authors: 
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 7.124

9.  Severe complications of circumcision: an analysis of 48 cases.

Authors:  Kadir Ceylan; Köseoğlu Burhan; Yüksel Yilmaz; Saban Can; Alpaslan Kuş; Güneş Mustafa
Journal:  J Pediatr Urol       Date:  2006-06-09       Impact factor: 1.830

10.  Revision of circumcision in children: Report of 56 cases.

Authors:  Paul A Brisson; Haroon I Patel; Neil R Feins
Journal:  J Pediatr Surg       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 2.545

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Prepuce health and childhood circumcision: Choices in Canada.

Authors:  Emmanuel O Abara
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2017 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.862

2.  Teaching neonatal circumcision.

Authors:  Peter Metcalfe
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2013 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 1.862

3.  Routine histopathological examination of the foreskin after circumcision for clinically suspected lichen sclerosus in children: Is it a waste of resources?

Authors:  Fahad A Alyami; Zhoobin Heidari Bateni; Raken Odeh; Walid A Farhat; Martin Koyle
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2018-02-06       Impact factor: 1.862

4.  To avoid circumcision complications, avoid circumcision.

Authors:  Robert Darby
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.862

5.  How appropriate is circumcision?

Authors:  Dennis Harrison
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2014 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.862

6.  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

7.  A "Wear and Tear" Hypothesis to Explain Sudden Infant Death Syndrome.

Authors:  Eran Elhaik
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2016-10-28       Impact factor: 4.003

8.  Health service provider education and/or training in infant male circumcision to improve short- and long-term morbidity outcomes: protocol for systematic review.

Authors:  Thomas Gyan; Natalie Strobel; Kimberley McAuley; Caitlin Shannon; Sam Newton; Charlotte Tawiah-Agyemang; Seeba Amenga-Etego; Seth Owusu-Agyei; David Forbes; Karen Edmond
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2016-03-01
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.