15,022
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
Add citation.
Drs. Charles Ginsburg & George McCracken (1982) carried out a study of UTI in boys at [https://www.parklandhospital.com/ Parkland Hospital], a public hospital for indigent patients in Dallas, Texas. They reported that 95% of the boys in their study were not circumcised<ref name="ginsburg uti"/>, and this piqued the interest of US Army pediatrician [[Thomas E. Wiswell]].
In a determined search for an association between the presence of the [[foreskin ]] and UTI, Wiswell et al. (1985) retrospectively examined charts of a number of boys born at U.S. military hospitals.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=Wiswell
|init=TE
|volume=32
|pages=130-134
}}</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."
Wiswell's findings generated a great deal of controversy at the time. The prepuce (foreskin) is a protective organ, and one would not normally expect the removal of a healthy organ to reduce the risk of infections.<ref name="Cunningham 1986"/> Nevertheless, the apparent correlation of intact foreskin to bacteriuria (and hence UTI) prompted the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to review the evidence available in 1989.
=== Even if... ===
Wiswell's sensational statistic, that [[circumcision ]] resulted in a "ten to hundred times decrease in urinary tract infections in circumcised boys," has often been quoted; however, it is misleading. In fact, UTIs are so rare in either case that,even giving Wiswell's data the benefit of the doubt, 50 to 100 healthy boys would have to be circumcised in order to prevent a UTI from developing in only one patient. Using more recent data from a better-controlled study, the number of unnecessary operations needed to prevent one hospital admission for UTI would jump to 195.<ref>{{REFjournal
|last=To
|init=T
== Conclusion ==
The notion that [[circumcision ]] is a useful prophylactic against UTI has been laid to rest by the 1999 AAP Task Force on Circumcision.<ref name="AAP 1999"/> Instead, healthy, natural alternatives such as breastfeeding and rooming-in must be given favor. Breastfeeding offers a wide range of benefits for both mother and baby. Circumcision is surgery, and as such it has attendant risks, which include includes UTI itself.The proper treatment of UTI, if it occurs, is antimicrobial.<ref name="McCracken 1989" />
Prevention of UTI is not regarded as a reason to circumcise a boy.
|accessdate=2019-12-20
|quote=It also takes awhile to digest the fact that circumcision was introduced into this country not as physical hygiene measure but as a mental hygiene measure to prevent masturbation.
}}
* {{REFjournal
|last=Fleiss
|first=
|init=PM
|author-link=Paul M. Fleiss
|etal=no
|title=Effect of circumcision on incidence of urinary tract infection
|trans-title=
|language=
|journal=J Pediar
|location=
|date=1996-09
|season=
|volume=129
|issue=3
|article=
|page=478
|pages=
|url=https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(96)70098-7/fulltext
|archived=
|quote=
|pubmedID=8804346
|pubmedCID=
|DOI=10.1016/s0022-3476(96)70098-7
|accessdate=2022-05-23
}}
* {{REFweb