| Literature DB >> 27253372 |
Hillary Mukudu1, Kennedy Otwombe1, Fatima Laher1, Erica Lazarus1, Mmatsie Manentsa1, Limakatso Lebina1, Victor Mapulanga2, Kasonde Bowa3, Neil Martinson1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Medical device use is currently approved for males without preputial or major penile scrotal abnormalities for voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC). We determined the prevalence of preputial abnormalities at a busy VMMC centre in Soweto, South Africa.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27253372 PMCID: PMC4890756 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0156265
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Characteristics of clients who presented for VMMC by age in Soweto.
| Variable | Total | 8–13 years | 14–18 years | >18 years |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6861 | 2543 (37.1%) | 1725 (25.1) | 2593 (37.8%) | |
| 15 (12–23) | 12 (11–13) | 15 (14–17) | 26 (22–31) | |
| | 6292 (91.7%) | 2153 (84.7%) | 1689 (97.9%) | 2450 (94.5%) |
| | 257 (3.8%) | 124 (4.9%) | 30 (1.7%) | 103 (4.0%) |
| | 6242 (91.0%) | 2098 (82.5%) | 1706 (98.9%) | 2438 (94.0%) |
| | 167 (2.4%) | 21 (0.8%) | 16 (0.9%) | 130 (5.0%) |
| | 447 (6.5%) | 420 (16.5%) | 2 (0.1%) | 25 (1.0%) |
| 1030 (15.0%) | 693 (27.3%) | 182 (10.6%) | 155 (6.0%) | |
| | 667 (64.8%) | 448 (64.6%) | 140 (76.9%) | 79 (51.0%) |
| | 185 (18.0%) | 168 (24.2%) | 13 (7.1%) | 4 (0.2%) |
| | 70 (6.8%) | 56 (8.1%) | 12 (6.6%) | 2 (1.3%) |
| | 52 (5.0%) | 1 (0.1%) | 6 (3.3%) | 45 (29.0%) |
| | 13 (1.3%) | 7 (1.0%) | 4 (2.2%) | 2 (1.3%) |
| | 12 (1.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 2 (1.1%) | 10 (6.5%) |
| | 9 (0.9%) | 4 (0.6%) | 2 (1.1%) | 3 (1.9%) |
| | 5 (0.5%) | 1 (0.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | 4 (2.6%) |
| | 4 (0.4%) | 3 (0.4%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.6%) |
| | 2 (0.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.5%) | 1 (0.6%) |
| | 2 (0.2%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.5%) | 1 (0.6%) |
| | 1 (0.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.6%) |
| | 1 (0.1%) | 0 (0.0%) | 0 (0.0%) | 1 (0.6%) |
| | 7 (0.7%) | 5 (0.7%) | 1 (0.5%) | 1 (0.6%) |
*Some data missing therefore does not add to total; percentages calculated using available data.
Fig 1Overall distribution of genital abnormalities.
Fig 2Overall distribution of genital abnormalities by age.
Fig 3Distribution of phimosis by age.
Fig 4Distribution of complete coronal adhesions by age.
Factors associated with genital abnormality in Soweto.
| Univariate | Multivariate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | OR (CI) | p-value | OR (CI) | p-value |
| 8–13 vs. >18 | 5.9 (4.9–7.1) | <0.0001 | 5.9 (4.8–7.1) | |
| 14–18 vs. > 18 | 1.9 (1.5–2.3) | <0.0001 | 1.9 (1.5–2.4) | |
| Non-KNMMC vs. KNMMC | 2.2 (1.6–2.9) | <0.0001 | 1.9 (1.4–2.7) | |
| Positive vs. Negative | 0.9 (0.5–1.4) | 0.56 | 1.04 (0.6–1.9) | 0.60 |
| Refused/Not tested vs. Negative | 2.4 (1.9–2.9) | <0.0001 | 0.9 (0.6–1.3) | 0.51 |