The Effect of Circumcision Status on Periurethral and Glanular Bacterial Flora

Günşar, Cüneyt; Kurutepe, Semra; Alparslan, Oğuz; Yılmaz, Ömer; Dağlar, Zafer; Şencan, Aydın; Genç, Abdülkadir; Taneli, Can; Mir, Erol

doi:10.1159/000077117

Cited by 34 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In an internally controlled study with fair evidence, researchers cultured the periurethral and glandular sulcus of 50 children aged 1 to 12 weeks before and 4 weeks after circumcision and found the pathogenic bacteria largely disappeared after circumcision (33 children had pathogenic bacteria before circumcision and 4 had pathogenic bacteria after circumcision). 26 In adults and children, there is fair evidence that periurethral flora contains fewer pathogens after circumcision than before circumcision. 26,27 Because these studies looked at cultures 1 time (4 weeks after the circumcision), the long-term significance of the findings is unclear.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…26 In adults and children, there is fair evidence that periurethral flora contains fewer pathogens after circumcision than before circumcision. 26,27 Because these studies looked at cultures 1 time (4 weeks after the circumcision), the long-term significance of the findings is unclear.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The preputial space provides an environment that is thought to "trap" pathogens and bodily secretions and favor their survival and replication. 26,27,34 The circumcised male has no foreskin and may likely provide a less welcoming environment for such substances. In addition, STI-containing secretions have increased contact time in the prospective uncircumcised male host, which may increase the likelihood of transmission and infection.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Male Circumcision

Blank¹,

Brady²,

Buerk³

et al. 2012

Pediatrics

299

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Male circumcision consists of the surgical removal of some, or all, of the foreskin (or prepuce) from the penis. It is one of the most common procedures in the world. In the United States, the procedure is commonly performed during the newborn period. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) convened a multidisciplinary workgroup of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the evidence regarding male circumcision and update the AAP’s 1999 recommendations in this area. The Task Force included AAP representatives from specialty areas as well as members of the AAP Board of Directors and liaisons representing the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Task Force members identified selected topics relevant to male circumcision and conducted a critical review of peer-reviewed literature by using the American Heart Association’s template for evidence evaluation. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks; furthermore, the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits from male circumcision were identified for the prevention of urinary tract infections, acquisition of HIV, transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, and penile cancer. Male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction. It is imperative that those providing circumcision are adequately trained and that both sterile techniques and effective pain management are used. Significant acute complications are rare. In general, untrained providers who perform circumcisions have more complications than well-trained providers who perform the procedure, regardless of whether the former are physicians, nurses, or traditional religious providers. Parents are entitled to factually correct, nonbiased information about circumcision and should receive this information from clinicians before conception or early in pregnancy, which is when parents typically make circumcision decisions. Parents should determine what is in the best interest of their child. Physicians who counsel families about this decision should provide assistance by explaining the potential benefits and risks and ensuring that parents understand that circumcision is an elective procedure. The Task Force strongly recommends the creation, revision, and enhancement of educational materials to assist parents of male infants with the care of circumcised and uncircumcised penises. The Task Force also strongly recommends the development of educational materials for providers to enhance practitioners’ competency in discussing circumcision’s benefits and risks with parents. The Task Force made the following recommendations:Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, and the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for those families who choose it.Parents are entitled to factually correct, nonbiased information about circumcision that should be provided before conception and early in pregnancy, when parents are most likely to be weighing the option of circumcision of a male child.Physicians counseling families about elective male circumcision should assist parents by explaining, in a nonbiased manner, the potential benefits and risks and by ensuring that they understand the elective nature of the procedure.Parents should weigh the health benefits and risks in light of their own religious, cultural, and personal preferences, as the medical benefits alone may not outweigh these other considerations for individual families.Parents of newborn boys should be instructed in the care of the penis, regardless of whether the newborn has been circumcised or not.Elective circumcision should be performed only if the infant’s condition is stable and healthy.Male circumcision should be performed by trained and competent practitioners, by using sterile techniques and effective pain management.Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with newborn circumcision; thus, adequate analgesia should be provided whenever newborn circumcision is performed.Nonpharmacologic techniques (eg, positioning, sucrose pacifiers) alone are insufficient to prevent procedural and postprocedural pain and are not recommended as the sole method of analgesia. They should be used only as analgesic adjuncts to improve infant comfort during circumcision.If used, topical creams may cause a higher incidence of skin irritation in low birth weight infants, compared with infants of normal weight; penile nerve block techniques should therefore be chosen for this group of newborns.Key professional organizations (AAP, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, the American College of Nurse Midwives, and other midlevel clinicians such as nurse practitioners) should work collaboratively to:Develop standards of trainee proficiency in the performance of anesthetic and procedure techniques, including suturing;Teach the procedure and analgesic techniques during postgraduate training programs;Develop educational materials for clinicians to enhance their own competency in discussing the benefits and risks of circumcision with parents;Offer educational materials to assist parents of male infants with the care of both circumcised and uncircumcised penises.The preventive and public health benefits associated with newborn male circumcision warrant third-party reimbursement of the procedure. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this technical report.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Male Circumcision

Blank¹,

Brady²,

Buerk³

et al. 2012

Pediatrics

299

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…13,14 After circumcision, the number of uropathogenic bacteria decreases substantially. 19,21 The risk of uri- 30 ‡Data on the time and day of presentation were collected from the emergency department database using the date and time the patients were seen for triage. Length of stay defined as time between presentation to triage and discharge from the emergency department.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been suggested that a subset of uncircumcised boys with a poorly visible urethral opening are at increased risk of urinary tract infection, [15][16][17] leading some experts to consider giving children with tight foreskins topical cortisone or circumcision to prevent urinary tract infections. 13,[18][19][20][21] We designed a study to challenge the opinion that all uncircumcised boys are at increased risk for urinary tract infections. We hypothesized a hierarchy of risk among uncircumcised boys depending on the visibility of the urethral meatus, with those with a partially or nonvisible meatus at highest risk, and those with a completely visible meatus having a level of risk similar to that of boys who have been circumcised.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Visibility of the urethral meatus and risk of urinary tract infections in uncircumcised boys

Dubrovsky

Foster

Jednak

et al. 2012

CMAJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Uncircumcised boys are at higher risk for urinary tract infections than circumcised boys. Whether this risk varies with the visibility of the urethral meatus is not known. Our aim was to determine whether there is a hierarchy of risk among uncircumcised boys whose urethral meatuses are visible to differing degrees. Methods:We conducted a prospective crosssectional study in one pediatric emergency department. We screened 440 circumcised and uncircumcised boys. Of these, 393 boys who were not toilet trained and for whom the treating physician had requested a catheter urine culture were included in our analysis. At the time of catheter insertion, a nurse characterized the visibility of the urethral meatus (phimosis) using a 3-point scale (completely visible, partially visible or nonvisible). Our primary outcome was urinary tract infection, and our primary exposure variable was the degree of phimosis: completely visible versus partially or nonvisible urethral meatus.

show abstract