Literature DB >> 34997197

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

Matthew Deacon1, Gordon Muir2.   

Abstract

Non-therapeutic circumcision refers to the surgical removal of part or all of the foreskin, in healthy males, where there is no medical condition requiring surgery. The arguments for and against this practice in children have been debated for many years, with conflicting and conflicted evidence presented on both sides. Here, we explore the evidence behind the claimed benefits and risks from a medical and health-related perspective. We examine the number of circumcisions which would be required to achieve each purported benefit, and set that against the reported rates of short- and long-term complications. We conclude that non-therapeutic circumcision performed on otherwise healthy infants or children has little or no high-quality medical evidence to support its overall benefit. Moreover, it is associated with rare but avoidable harm and even occasional deaths. From the perspective of the individual boy, there is no medical justification for performing a circumcision prior to an age that he can assess the known risks and potential benefits, and choose to give or withhold informed consent himself. We feel that the evidence presented in this review is essential information for all parents and practitioners considering non-therapeutic circumcisions on otherwise healthy infants and children.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.

Entities:  

Year:  2022        PMID: 34997197     DOI: 10.1038/s41443-021-00502-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Impot Res        ISSN: 0955-9930            Impact factor:   2.896


  90 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.  The fate of the foreskin, a study of circumcision.

Authors:  D GAIRDNER
Journal:  Br Med J       Date:  1949-12-24

3.  Is phimosis overdiagnosed in boys and are too many circumcisions performed in consequence?

Authors:  A M Rickwood; J Walker
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 1.891

Review 4.  Circumcision in the paediatric patient: A review of indications, technique and complications.

Authors:  Swetha Prabhakaran; Damir Ljuhar; Robert Coleman; Ramesh M Nataraja
Journal:  J Paediatr Child Health       Date:  2018-09-23       Impact factor: 1.954

5.  Further fate of the foreskin. Incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys.

Authors:  J Oster
Journal:  Arch Dis Child       Date:  1968-04       Impact factor: 3.791

6.  The incidence of phimosis in boys.

Authors:  K R Shankar; A M Rickwood
Journal:  BJU Int       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 5.588

7.  Circumcision for the prevention of significant bacteriuria in boys.

Authors:  A Nayir
Journal:  Pediatr Nephrol       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 3.714

8.  Analysis of shape and retractability of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys.

Authors:  H Kayaba; H Tamura; S Kitajima; Y Fujiwara; T Kato; T Kato
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 7.450

9.  Highly potent and moderately potent topical steroids are effective in treating phimosis: a prospective randomized study.

Authors:  Stephen Shei Dei Yang; Yao Chou Tsai; Chia Chang Wu; Shih Ping Liu; Chung Cheng Wang
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 7.450

10.  Meatal stenosis in boys following circumcision for lichen sclerosus (balanitis xerotica obliterans).

Authors:  Lucy Homer; Katharine J Buchanan; Batoul Nasr; Paul D Losty; Harriet J Corbett
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  2014-06-30       Impact factor: 7.450

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.