Literature DB >> 28017691

Cultural background, non-therapeutic circumcision and the risk of meatal stenosis and other urethral stricture disease: Two nationwide register-based cohort studies in Denmark 1977-2013.

Morten Frisch1, Jacob Simonsen2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Meatal stenosis is markedly more common in circumcised than genitally intact males, affecting 5-20 per cent of circumcised boys. However, no population-based study has estimated the relative risk of meatal stenosis and other urethral stricture diseases (USDs) or the population attributable fraction (AFp) associated with non-therapeutic circumcision.
METHODS: In two nationwide cohort studies (comprising 4.0 million males of all ages and 810 719 non-Muslim males aged 0-36 years, respectively), we compared hospital contact rates for USD during 1977-2013 between circumcised and intact Danish males. Hazard ratios (HRs) were obtained using Cox proportional hazards regression, and the AFp estimated the proportion of USD cases in <10 year-old boys that is due to non-therapeutic circumcision.
RESULTS: Muslim males had higher rates of meatal stenosis than ethnic Danish males, particularly in <10 year-old boys (HR 3.44, 95 per cent confidence interval 2.42-4.88). HRs linking circumcision to meatal stenosis (10.3, 4.53-23.4) or other USDs (5.14, 3.48-7.60) were high, and attempts to reduce potential misclassification and confounding further strengthened the association, particularly in <10 year-old boys (meatal stenosis: 26.3, 9.37-73.9; other USDs: 14.0, 6.86-28.6). Conservative calculations revealed that at least 18, 41, 78, and 81 per cent of USD cases in <10 year-old boys from countries with circumcision prevalences as in Denmark, the United Kingdom, the United States and Israel, respectively, may be attributable to non-therapeutic circumcision.
CONCLUSION: Our study provides population-based epidemiological evidence that circumcision removes the natural protection against meatal stenosis and, possibly, other USDs as well.
Copyright © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Circumcision; Complications; Epidemiology; Meatal stenosis; Urethral stricture disease

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28017691     DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2016.11.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surgeon        ISSN: 1479-666X            Impact factor:   2.392


  7 in total

Review 1.  What is the medical evidence on non-therapeutic child circumcision?

Authors:  Matthew Deacon; Gordon Muir
Journal:  Int J Impot Res       Date:  2022-01-08       Impact factor: 2.896

2.  Non-therapeutic male circumcision in infancy or childhood and risk of human immunodeficiency virus and other sexually transmitted infections: national cohort study in Denmark.

Authors:  Morten Frisch; Jacob Simonsen
Journal:  Eur J Epidemiol       Date:  2021-09-26       Impact factor: 12.434

3.  CDC's Male Circumcision Recommendations Represent a Key Public Health Measure.

Authors:  Brian J Morris; John N Krieger; Jeffrey D Klausner
Journal:  Glob Health Sci Pract       Date:  2017-03-28

4.  Assessment of meatal stenosis in neonates undergoing circumcision using Plastibell Device with two different techniques.

Authors:  Hormoz Karami; Mehdi Abedinzadeh; Mohammad Kazem Moslemi
Journal:  Res Rep Urol       Date:  2018-09-27

5.  Meatal stenosis posttraditional neonatal circumcision-cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Ammar Fadil Abid; Naser Sabah Hussein
Journal:  Urol Ann       Date:  2021-01-19

6.  Infant Circumcision for Sexually Transmitted Infection Risk Reduction Globally.

Authors:  Brian J Morris; Stephen Moreton; John N Krieger; Jeffrey D Klausner
Journal:  Glob Health Sci Pract       Date:  2022-08-30

7.  Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: A systematic review.

Authors:  Brian J Morris; Stephen Moreton; John N Krieger
Journal:  J Evid Based Med       Date:  2019-09-08
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.