Urinary tract infection: Difference between revisions

}}</ref> Two interventions that put the male infant at immediate risk for UTIs are [[circumcision]], which removes the protection of the [[foreskin]], and [[forced retraction]] of the foreskin. These interventions tear away the synechia which binds the [[foreskin]] to the [[glans]] in male infants, thereby creating entry points for ''E. coli'' bacteria,<ref name="Winberg 1989">{{REFjournal

}}</ref> Urinary tract infections (UTI) are a [[complication]] of [[circumcision]].<ref>{{REFjournal

|title=Recent contributions to the study of pyelitis in infancy

|pages=235.243

}}</ref><ref name="Cohen 1992">{{REFjournal

}}</ref> so the majority of its young male client population would have necessarily remained [[intact]]. The observation that 95% of the boys were not circumcised, therefore, indicated nothing more than that the majority of male infant patients at Parkland Hospital were not circumcised.

* The hospital chart data used in the retrospective studies are unreliable. Hospitals frequently omit to record a circumcision on a baby's chart. In Atlanta, O'Brien found that circumcision was recorded only 84.3% of the time for circumcised boys.<ref>{{REFjournal

}}</ref> If the records used in the retrospective bacteriuria studies are similarly inaccurate, then a statistically significant number of the infants with bacteriuria that were claimed to be intact were, in fact, circumcised. This would naturally overstate the rate of infection in intact boys.<ref>{{REFjournal