22,208
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m
normalize et al. (AMA)
== Recurrent UTI ==
Recurrent UTIs are associated with congenital abnormalities of the upper urinary tract.<ref name="ginsburg uti"/><ref name="McCracken 1989"/><ref>Craig JC ''et al.'' [http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/craig/ Effect of circumcision on incidence of urinary tract infection in preschool boys]. From the Department of Nephrology, Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children, Sydney, Australia.</ref><ref name="Mueller 1997">{{REFjournal
|last=Mueller
|init=ER
|volume=100
|page=580 (supplement)
}}</ref><ref>Saez-Llorens X. ''et al.'' [http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/llorens/ Bacterial contamination rates for non-clean-catch and clean-catch midstream urine collections in uncircumcised boys]. From the Department of Pediatrics. Hospital Nacional de Ninos, San Jose, Costa Rica, and the Department of Pediatrics, the Children's Medical Center of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville VA.</ref> McCracken recommends investigation with radiographic and/or sonography.<ref name="ginsburg uti"/>
A recent study of mice indicates that p-fimbriated ''Escherichia Col''i, the organism responsible for about 85% of UTI, is capable of burrowing into the deeper tissue of the bladder<ref>{{REFjournal
Parents should be careful not to [[Forced retraction|forcibly retract]] the foreskin of a baby's penis, and to instruct the child's doctor and/or caretaker likewise. The act of forced retraction involves forcible separation that destroys a structural defense mechanism; the [[synechia]] which binds the foreskin to the glans is torn away, which allows E. coli to invade where it could not before.<ref name="Winberg 1989"/>
As circumcision necessitates [[forced retraction]] of the foreskin, additionally creating an open wound that is vulnerable to additional infection, parents are advised against circumcision.<ref name="Outerbridge 1998"/> These functions suggest that the intact prepuce may offer protection against UTI if undisturbed. The [[foreskin]] provides two physical lines of defense in the intact male child, which are removed in circumcision: the preputial sphincter, which closes when a boy is not urinating, and a protected meatus (urinary opening), which is often inflamed and open in circumcised boys.<ref name="Cunningham 1986"/> Recently, Fleiss ''et al''. (1998) reviewed the immunological functions of the prepuce. In addition, the sub-preputial moisture contains lysosyme, which has an anti-bacterial action.<ref name="Fleiss 1998"/> Oligosaccharides excreted in the urine of breastfed babies prevent adhesion of pathogens to uroepithelial tissue.<ref name="Marild 1990"/>
== The UTI scare ==
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=149
|pages=170-173
}}</ref> There is a significant false-positive rate in diagnosing UTI when urine cultures alone are used.<ref name="Mueller 1997"/><ref>Saez-Llorens X. ''et al.'' [http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/UTI/llorens/ Bacterial contamination rates for non-clean-catch and clean-catch midstream urine collections in uncircumcised boys]. From the Department of Pediatrics. Hospital Nacional de Ninos, San Jose, Costa Rica, and the Department of Pediatrics, the Children's Medical Center of the University of Virginia, Charlottesville VA.</ref> This criticism was addressed to some extent in Wiswell's second review.<ref name="Wiswell 1986"/>
* 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