A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Circumcision is a common procedure, but regional and societal attitudes differ on whether there is a need for a male to be circumcised and, if so, at what age. This is an important issue for many parents, but also pediatricians, other doctors, policy makers, public health authorities, medical bodies, and males themselves.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We show here that infancy is an optimal time for clinical circumcision because an infant's low mobility facilitates the use of local anesthesia, sutures are not required, healing is quick, cosmetic outcome is usually excellent, costs are minimal, and complications are uncommon. The benefits of infant circumcision include prevention of urinary tract infections (a cause of renal scarring), reduction in risk of inflammatory foreskin conditions such as balanoposthitis, foreskin injuries, phimosis and paraphimosis. When the boy later becomes sexually active he has substantial protection against risk of HIV and other viral sexually transmitted infections such as genital herpes and oncogenic human papillomavirus, as well as penile cancer. The risk of cervical cancer in his female partner(s) is also reduced. Circumcision in adolescence or adulthood may evoke a fear of pain, penile damage or reduced sexual pleasure, even though unfounded. Time off work or school will be needed, cost is much greater, as are risks of complications, healing is slower, and stitches or tissue glue must be used.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Infant circumcision is safe, simple, convenient and cost-effective. The available evidence strongly supports infancy as the optimal time for circumcision.</p

Surgical management of genitourinary lichen sclerosus et atrophicus in boys in England: A 10-year review of practices and outcomes

Introduction: Circumcision has long been the mainstay of management for genitourinary lichen sclerosus et atrophicus (LS); however, there has been growing interest in surgical techniques that preserve the foreskin. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess population-based surgical management of LS in England and determine surgical outcomes. Study design: Cases of LS treated in English NHS trusts (2002–2011) were extracted from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) Database. Cases were identified by both an ICD-10 code for LS and either an OPCS4.6 code for circumcision or preputioplasty (with/without injection of steroid). Subsequent admissions were analysed for related complications/procedures. Data are presented as median (interquartile range) unless otherwise stated. Results: 7893 patients had surgery for LS, of whom 7567 (95.8%) underwent circumcision (Table). Primary preputioplasty was performed in 326 (4.1%) in 44/130 centres; of these 151/326 had concomitant injection of steroid. Age at surgical intervention was 9 (6–11) years. There were no postoperative bleeds following preputioplasty. Of those treated with preputioplasty, 74 (22%) had subsequent circumcision at a median of 677 (277–1203) days post operation. Concomitant steroid injection reduced the risk of subsequent circumcision (21/151 (14%) vs. 53/175 (30%), p &lt; 0.001). More children underwent a second operative procedure following preputioplasty than those having had a primary circumcision (27.9% vs. 7.9%, p &lt; 0.001). Conclusion: Although circumcision is the predominant treatment for LS, these data suggest that preputioplasty is a valid option in management, albeit with a higher re-intervention rate. Selection bias may play a role and a randomized controlled trial is needed. Preputioplasty combined with steroid injection appears to reduce the chance of completion circumcision. [Table presented]</p