Changes

== The UTI scare ==

In a determined search for an association between the presence of the foreskin and UTI, Wiswell et al retrospectively examined charts of a number of boys born at U.S. military hospitals.<ref>Wiswell TE, Smith FR, Bass JW. Decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male infants. ''Pediatrics'' 1985, 75: 901-903.</ref><ref>Wiswell TE. Circumcision and urinary tract infections. ''Pediatrics'' 1986; 77: 267-8.</ref><ref>Wiswell TE, Roscelli JD. Corroborative evidence for the decreased incidence of urinary tract infection in circumcised male infants. ''Pediatrics'' 1986;78:96-99.</ref><ref>Wiswell TE, Enzenauer RW, Holton ME, Cornish JD, Hankins CT. Declining frequency of circumcision: implications for changes in the absolute incidence and male to female sex ratio of urinary tract infections in early infancy. ''Pediatrics'' 1987; 79: 338-42.</ref><ref>Wiswell TE, Geschke DW. Risks from circumcision during the first month of life compared with those for uncircumcised boys. ''Pediatrics'' 1989;83:1011-5.</ref><ref>Wiswell TE. Routine neonatal circumcision: a reappraisal. ''Am Fam Physician'' 1990; 41: 859-63.</ref><ref>Wiswell TE, Hachey WE. Urinary tract infections and the uncircumcised state: an update. ''Clin Pediatr'' (Phila) 1993; 32: 130-4.</ref> Based on their observations of these old charts, they reported that Intact boys had a slightly higher rate of bacteriuria (bacteria in the urine) than circumcised boys during their first year of life, leading to the sensational statistic that circumcision resulted in a "ten to hundred times decrease in urinary tract infections in circumcised boys."

Prevention of UTI is not regarded as a reason to circumcise a boy.

{{REF}}