Commentary on
the Royal Australasian College of Physicians'
policy on circumcision

This policy, released in Australia and New Zealand on September 27, 2002 (the original is at http://www.racp.edu.au/hpu/paed/circumcision/index.htm#toc), is a great step ahead of any of the corresponding American policies.

On the other hand:

The RACP has issued a brochure which significantly waters down these recommendations.

Paediatrics & Child Health Division
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians

 

Policy Statement On Circumcision

This revised policy has been developed at the instigation of the Paediatrics & Child Health Division of The Royal Australasian College of Physicians, following critical literature analysis by a working party of representatives from a number of professional organisations.

The policy represents an agreed position adopted by the following:

  • Paediatrics & Child Health Division of The Royal Australasian College of Physicians
  • Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons
  • New Zealand Society of Paediatric Surgeons
  • Urological Society of Australasia
  • Royal Australasian College of Surgeons
  • Paediatric Society of New Zealand

The purpose of this document is to assist clinicians in their discussions with parents who are considering having this procedure undertaken on their male children. A separate parents' brochure is available from the Paediatrics & Child Health Divisional Office, ph (02) 9256 5409.

September 2002

 

ROUTINE CIRCUMCISION OF NORMAL MALE INFANTS AND BOYS - SUMMARY STATEMENT

The Paediatrics & Child Health Division, The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) has prepared this statement on routine circumcision of infants and boys to assist parents who are considering having this procedure undertaken on their male children and for doctors who are asked to advise on or undertake it. After extensive review of the literature the RACP reaffirms that there is no medical indication for routine male circumcision. [Their emphasis]

Circumcision of males has been undertaken for religious and cultural reasons for many thousands of years. It remains an important ritual in some religious and cultural groups. In Australia and New Zealand, the circumcision rate has fallen considerably in recent years and it is estimated that currently only 10 percent of male infants are routinely circumcised. [An average of two very different countries. Within Australia the rate is lower and falling in some states, in others higher and stable or (NSW) rising. The New Zealand rate is much lower.] It is now generally performed with some form of local or general anaesthesia, and usually outside the neonatal period. The best recognised indication for circumcision is phimosis.

There have been increasing claims over recent years of health benefits from routine male circumcision. The most important other conditions where some benefit may result from circumcision are urinary tract infections, HIV and later cancer of the penis.

  • Urinary tract infections in boys are uncommon, affecting at most 1-2%, and may be about five times less frequent in circumcised boys, while circumcision has a complication rate of 1% to 5%. Routine neonatal circumcision can not be supported as a public health measure on this basis.
  • While there is some evidence, particularly from sub-Saharan Africa, that male circumcision reduces the risk of acquisition of HIV, evidence is conflicting and clearly this can not be seen as an argument in favour of universal neonatal circumcision in countries with a low prevalence of HIV.
  • Penile cancer is a rare disease with an incidence of around 1 per 100,000 in developed countries. Even though the evidence suggests neonatal circumcision may reduce the risk ten-fold, the rarity of the condition is such that universal circumcision is clearly not justified on these grounds.

The complication rate of neonatal circumcision is reported to be around 1% to 5% and includes local infection, bleeding and damage to the penis. Serious complications such as bleeding, septicaemia and meningitis may occasionally cause death.

The possibility that routine circumcision may contravene human rights has been raised because circumcision is performed on a minor and is without proven medical benefit. Whether these legal concerns are valid will be known only if the matter is determined in a court of law.

[There are other avenues. They cite one collection of legal opinions from which it is possible to draw a conclusion. A number of international human rights declarations offer illumination.]

If the operation is to be performed, the medical attendant should ensure this is done by a competent operator, using appropriate anaesthesia and in a safe child-friendly environment.

In all cases where parents request a circumcision for their child the medical attendant is obliged to provide accurate information on the risks and benefits of the procedure. Up-to-date, unbiased written material summarising the evidence should be widely available to parents.

[No doctor is obliged to perform this (or any) operation at parental insistence, and no nurse or other staff should be required to assist if it is contrary to their principles.]

Review of the literature in relation to risks and benefits shows there is no evidence of benefit outweighing harm for circumcision as a routine procedure.

1. RECENT LITERATURE AND POLICY STATEMENTS

There is an extensive literature on circumcision in general, and male neonatal circumcision in particular. This includes a number of books1,2 and recent reviews3 including those by the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS)4 and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)5,6.

The CPS recommended "Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed" (reaffirmed February 2001: (www.cps.ca/english/publications/FetusAndNewborn) and the AAP concluded "we can not recommend a policy of routine newborn circumcision". (www.aap.org/mrt/factscir.htm).

Following the present review of the evidence, the RACP concurs with these statements and endorses the 1996 statement of the Australian College of Paediatrics (now the Division of Paediatrics & Child Health of RACP) and Australasian Association of Paediatric Surgeons that "Neonatal male circumcision has no medical indication".

2. HISTORY OF CIRCUMCISION

Circumcision of males has been undertaken for religious and cultural reasons for many thousands of years. It probably originated as a hygienic measure in communities living in hot, dusty and dry environments. [There is no evidence for this claim.] It remains an important ritual in several religious and cultural groups.

Medicalisation of male circumcision seems to have occurred in the 19th century in English-speaking countries. Being circumcised was a sign that the individual had been delivered by a doctor rather than by a midwife1. Over the years, circumcision has been seen as a cure or preventative measure for all manner of conditions including paralysis, insanity, epilepsy, tuberculosis, enuresis, masturbation and phimosis, through to the contemporary claims for prevention of urinary tract infections in boys, and penile cancer and sexually transmitted diseases in adult males.

During the last 50-100 years, routine neonatal male circumcision became widespread in many English-speaking countries. Until the late 1960s or early 1970s, it was generally performed without any form of anaesthesia.

The rates of circumcision vary from country to country, being about 60% in the USA (with recent data suggesting falling rates, particularly amongst the growing Hispanic population), 30% in Ontario, Canada, 6% in the UK (rates fell when circumcision became unavailable on the NHS), and less than 2% in Scandinavia. Estimates for Australia range between 10-20% (most of which are now performed under a general anaesthetic in boys older than six months), and for New Zealand somewhat less than that. The procedure is more common in Pacific Island communities where traditional circumcisers are often used. [...sometimes with disastrous results. It may also be carried out on unwilling older boys, raising legal and ethical issues this paper fails to address.]

3. ANATOMY OF THE FORESKIN

3.1 BACKGROUND

The foreskin is a redundant fold of penile skin

This definition comes from Gray's Anatomy, highly regarded but written in 19th century English.

The word "redundant" can only be justified in an old and obscure sense:

Superabundant, abounding to ... fullness (1638); plentiful, copious, exuberant (1671), swelling up (1774)
from Redound: to flow, come or go back. (1596)

- Shorter Oxford Dictionary

The suggestion that the normal foreskin is redundant in the modern sense of "surplus to requirements" has no justification in anatomy.


which overlaps the glans penis7. It first appears at eight weeks of fetal life and soon grows forwards over the glans penis. By 16 weeks it covers the glans. At this stage the epidermis of the under-surface of the foreskin is continuous with the epidermis covering the glans. Both consist of squamous epithelium. The foreskin (prepuce) and glans penis enclose a potential cleft, the preputial sac. A preputial space is then formed by a process of desquamation, and the prepuce increasingly separates from the glans8.

At the time of birth this process is incomplete in the vast majority of boys, and the foreskin is non-retractable. Complete separation of the foreskin with full retractability occurs in almost all boys by the time of puberty9.

3.2 CARE OF THE FORESKIN

It is normal for the inner surface of the foreskin to be fused to the glans in newborn males. Separation of the foreskin from the glans occurs spontaneously during childhood. By five years of age most of boys are able to retract their foreskin9. A small percentage of boys are unable to fully retract their foreskin until puberty. [And some remain unretractable through adulthood, and their owners have no problem with that.]

The foreskin requires no special care during infancy. It should be left alone10. Attempts to forcibly retract it are painful, often injure the foreskin, and can lead to scarring and phimosis.

Later in childhood, the foreskin can be gently retracted to the point where resistance is met and the distal portion of the penis and the urethral meatus become visible. The glans and the inner surface of the foreskin can be cleaned along with the rest of the body once separation has occurred and the foreskin is fully retractable11.

By around the time of puberty, all uncircumcised boys should be able to retract their foreskin and clean underneath it in the bath or shower. [This "should" has no place in a descriptive passage. Some foreskins never retract.] It is important that they always return the foreskin to its original position after they have finished. If the foreskin is left retracted behind the glans, it may swell up and become painful (paraphimosis).

As the foreskin separates from the glans, dead skin cells will collect between the two layers. These dead cells appear as white crumbly or cheesy material and have been termed smegma. Smegma may produce a noticeable (and often asymmetrical) swelling beneath the foreskin. This material rarely causes problems and usually discharges spontaneously. Accumulation of smegma assists the normal process of separation of the inner surface of the foreskin to the glans of the penis in the young boy. Infection of smegma as it is released may cause inflammation.

Although there is evidence that boys who are uncircumcised have a higher incidence of urinary tract infections, there is no evidence that the increased incidence of infection is due to poor hygiene.

3.3 Functions and value of the foreskin

This section and its reference/s79 are unaccountably misssing.

 

4. MEDICAL INDICATIONS FOR CIRCUMCISION

4.1 PHIMOSIS

Pathological phimosis, which needs to be distinguished from the normal non-retractile foreskin of early childhood12, is an indication for circumcision13,14. [Wrong, in non-circumcising cultures, there are a variety of non-surgical and surgical alternatives.] The condition occurs in at least 1% of boys15,16, is rare in the first five years of life and may be due to secondary cicatrisation of the foreskin due to balanitis xerotica obliterans (BXO)17,18. Topical application of steroid ointment may resolve phimosis in the majority of boys19,20 except in those with BXO where steroids are rarely successful.

Physiological phimosis (normal narrowing of the foreskin that may make visualisation of the glans difficult during infancy) will normally resolve by the age of three to four years and requires no treatment. If pathological (i.e. non-physiological) phimosis fails to respond to steroid cream/ointment applied to the tight part of the foreskin two to four times a day for two to six weeks, there is a reasonable probability that it will cause problems in the future and the child may well benefit from circumcision. In a proportion of boys the phimosis redevelops after cessation of applications of steroid treatment.

4.2 RECURRENT BALANOPOSTHITIS

Recurrent balanoposthitis is a relative indication for circumcision. The condition needs to be distinguished from the more benign ammoniacal dermatitis13. Balanoposthitis affects 3-4% of boys, and is recurrent in about 1% of boys21. Balanoposthitis and balanitis may also occur in adults. Diabetes may be a risk factor22.

4.3 PARAPHIMOSIS

Recurrent paraphimosis is extremely rare and may represent a relative indication for circumcision. In children, the condition is usually secondary to forceful retraction of the foreskin [by misguided parents, nurses or doctors] and is associated with a minor degree of phimosis. In adults, paraphimosis typically occurs in the elderly. Men requiring frequent bladder catheterisation are particularly at risk23 [when misguided doctors or nurses insert a catheter under a retracted foreskin]. Treatment in children involves manipulation of the foreskin forwards over the glans, and requires some form of analgesia (general or local). In a minority of children, after reduction of paraphimosis, circumcision may be required if topical application of a steroid preparation fails to resolve the underlying phimosis, or if paraphimosis recurs.

5. THE ROLE OF CIRCUMCISION IN PREVENTING OTHER CONDITIONS

5.1 URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS (UTIS)

The cumulative incidence of UTI in boys by the age of about 10 is 1-2% 24,25. Ginsburg and McCracken26 first reported a higher incidence of UTIs in uncircumcised boys. This is biologically plausible because uropathogens have been shown to bind to the foreskin and then gain access to the renal tract via the ascending route; removal of the foreskin would abolish this mechanism. Other factors may be important in determining the prevalent organisms. For example, rooming in with mother may favour colonisation with non-pathogenic bacteria4,27, and breast feeding has been associated with lower rates of UTI than bottle feeding in one brief report28.

There have now been ten case control and cohort studies published, which have evaluated the association between circumcision and UTIs24,29-37, but no randomised controlled trials have been done. All have demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in risk of UTI in circumcised males compared with uncircumcised males, with most data concerning the risk of UTI during infancy. The magnitude of the reported protective effect varies from a three-fold reduction to a twelve-fold reduction in risk of UTI due to circumcision. These data may be used to assess possible benefits and harm from neonatal circumcision. Assuming an annual incidence of UTI of 1% during the first year of life for uncircumcised boys, the risk of UTI may be reduced from 10 per 1000 to 1-3 per 1000, a difference of 7-9 per 1000, or a need to circumcise between 110 to 140 boys to prevent one UTI during the first year of life.

On the other side of the equation, taking a mid-range figure of 2% (20 per 1000) for major complications from circumcision, mainly from haemorrhage and infection (see earlier section), for every 1000 infants circumcised, about eight fewer will develop a UTI but 20 will develop a significant complication. Assuming that the "harm" of a UTI is about the same as a complication, routine circumcision is difficult to advocate as a public health measure.

Other figures can be used to come to a different conclusion but even then many parents and caregivers would believe this should not be the only consideration38.

The benefit-harm trade-off is also sensitive to the baseline risk of UTI. Assuming the same protective benefits of circumcision for the prevention of UTI extends to boys at higher risk of UTI, such as those with underlying renal tract abnormalities, [There is no basis for this assumption] then it is likely that a small group of boys, who continue to have symptomatic recurrent UTI despite conventional clinical care such as chemoprophylaxis, will benefit from circumcision. The risk of UTI in these boys is not 1% as it is in the general population, but closer to 30%39,40 so that only 4-5 boys would need to be circumcised to prevent UTI, or 200-270 UTIs prevented for every 1000 circumcisions with about 20 complications. [But since the renal tract anomalies are usually only discovered when the UTIs occur, there is no way of knowing in advance which these boys are.]

In summary, routine circumcision in boys cannot be justified on the basis of preventing a UTI. On the other hand, there may be a role for circumcision in boys with recurrent symptomatic UTI and/or underlying renal tract abnormalities.

5.2 SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES (STDS)

The published evidence concerning the relationship between circumcision and STD is often conflicting41. An Australian study from 198342 suggested herpes genitalis, candidiasis, gonorrhoea and syphilis were all more common in uncircumcised men. A more recent Australian study43, however, suggested that circumcision has no significant effect on the incidence of common STD's. One study has suggested a higher risk of non-gonococcal urethritis among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men44. Genital ulcer disease, on the other hand, has been reported as being more common among uncircumcised men, and those with a genital ulcer are more likely to contract HIV.

There is increasing evidence, particularly from sub-Saharan Africa, which suggests an increased risk of female to male transmission of HIV in uncircumcised men45-48. However, how much circumcision could contribute to ameliorate the current epidemic of HIV is uncertain49. Whatever the future direction of this debate it can not be seen as an argument in favour of universal neonatal circumcision in countries with a low prevalence of HIV.

5.3 HUMAN PAPILLOMA VIRUS AND CARCINOMA OF THE CERVIX

A recent international study reported an increased risk of human papilloma virus (HPV) infection in uncircumcised men who indulged in high-risk behaviours, compared with circumcised men50. Monogamous women whose male partners had six or more sexual partners and were circumcised had a lower risk of cervical cancer than [monogamous] women whose [equally promiscuous] partners were uncircumcised. [This study compared women with circumcised partners mainly in the Philippines with women with intact partners mainly in other countries. Many other factors, such as smoking by women, vary across countries.] Public health measures aimed at early detection have been shown to decrease cervical cancer fatalities. Targeting sexually promiscuous men to decrease risk-taking and increase condom use may inhibit sexual transmission of HPV. Prophylactic vaccination against HPV is being developed. At present there are no data to suggest advocating neonatal circumcision would be of additional benefit to these strategies51.

5.4 CARCINOMA OF THE PENIS

Carcinoma of the penis is a rare condition, with an annual incidence of approximately 1:100,000 men in developed countries, regardless of whether there is a high or a low circumcision rate4,5. There is evidence that neonatal circumcision confers protection from carcinoma of the glans penis but not of the penis shaft52-56. [The main protection it confers is from cancer of the foreskin, but this should hardly come as a surprise - or justify circumcision.] Even though the evidence suggests neonatal circumcision does reduce the risk of carcinoma ten-fold, universal circumcision is clearly not justified on these grounds46.

Other risk factors for penile cancer include phimosis (which is limited to uncircumcised men [not true, oddly enough: a loose circumcision can cause phimosis]), genital warts, increased number of sexual partners and cigarette smoking57,58. It has been hypothesised that good penile hygiene may help prevent both phimosis and penile cancer59.[It has also been hypothesised that in the past, low socio-economic status has led to intactness and independently to risk factors for cancer, such as smoking, generating a spurious correlation between the latter two factors.]

6. COMPLICATIONS OF CIRCUMCISION

Apart from pain and distress, and the side effects of local anaesthesia, there have been many complications of circumcision reported5,60,61. Most complications are minor, but some can be more severe, such as penile amputation and even death. The overall reported rate of complications after circumcision varies between 0.06%62 to 55%63 depending on the situation in which it is performed and the precise definition of complication. Most series describe a complication rate of about 2-10%64-66. A detailed summary of complications has been provided by Williams and Kapila61, and includes the following:

  • Haemorrhage
  • Infection
  • Glanular ulceration
  • Meatal stenosis
  • Inadvertent injury of the urethra (fistula)
  • Too much skin removed
  • Anaesthetic complications
  • Psychological trauma
  • Secondary phimosis
  • Secondary chordee.

    • [Also:

  • Ablation of the glans
  • Ablation of the penis
  • Death]
    •

The true incidence of major complications after newborn circumcision is unknown but is reported to be from between 0.2% and 0.6%5 to 2-10%61. The most frequent acute problem is haemorrhage, and may indicate an underlying vitamin K deficiency or haemophilia. Infection is usually minor, but rarely septicaemia and meningitis may occur. Longer term complications include meatal stenosis, cutaneous tags, [cutaneous {skin} bridges] poor cosmetic appearance, and psychological trauma. Children with prominent prepubic fat may have a concealed penis following surgery which tends to resolve at puberty [but which must be psychologically devastating until it does].

6.1 ABSOLUTE CONTRAINDICATIONS TO NEONATAL CIRCUMCISION

Contraindications to routine neonatal circumcision include:

  • Hypospadias and other congenital anomalies of the penis, e.g. epispadias
  • Chordee (ventral angulation of the penis)
  • Buried penis
  • Sick and unstable infants
  • Family history of a bleeding disorder or an actual bleeding disorder
  • Inadequate expertise and facilities.

7. LEGAL AND BIOETHICAL ISSUES

The legal and bioethical issues surrounding male neonatal circumcision have been discussed in recent legal journal reviews60,67. Parents have the right, indeed duty, to make informed medical decisions on behalf of their children. It is equally established in law that parents may not make decisions about their child's medical care when such a decision is not in the child's best interests. Many legal precedents exist to establish that courts will deny parents the right to refuse medically indicated procedures required by their child that are contrary to their religious beliefs.

The difficulty with a procedure which is not medically indicated is whether it may still be in the child's "best interests" (that is, in the case of circumcision, decreasing the risk of UTI and penile cancer, and ensuring acceptance within a religio-cultural group [This is not a medical consideration. It is a very moot point whether doctors should consent to performing surgery on such grounds.]) on the one hand60 or whether it may constitute an assault upon the child and be a violation of human rights on the other67. Arguments to justify the "best interests" case are based upon data to suggest a decreased risk of medical conditions later in life, none of which, with the possible exception of UTIs in boys, requires a decision in the neonatal period, and this could be seen to be an argument to defer a decision until the individual can express his own preferences. Generally the courts have avoided jurisdiction in this area60. However, there has been a 1999 UK case where separated parents disagreed on the question of circumcision with the court finding circumcision not to meet the "paramountcy of welfare" standard and not be in the best interests of the child60. [This case resulted in a ruling that both parents must consent before a boy is circumcised.] One issue, which is agreed, is that before parents make a decision about circumcision they should have access to unbiased and clear information on the medical risks and benefits of the procedure. Whether this has always been the case in the past is uncertain, and many parents make such a decision on cultural and religious grounds alone68. [This raises the question, what are the medical ethics of performing surgery at the behest of parents who made such a decision on "cultural and religious grounds alone"?]

[In the absence of Section 3.3, Functions and value of the foreskin, this ethical discussion has a gaping hole: What are the ethics of removing and destroying something with functions the penis' owner may later value?]

8. ANALGESIA

Until recent times a majority of neonatal circumcisions were performed without analgesia. Stated justifications for not using analgesia include a belief that circumcision causes minimal pain, that rapid expert circumcision causes less pain than that engendered by local anaesthetic procedures and that newborns have no memory of pain. There are good experimental data to refute the first two of these contentions and, even though the third suggestion cannot be considered a sufficient reason to withhold analgesia, there is an emerging body of evidence to show that painful neonatal experiences do have long-term consequences, even if not rooted in conscious memory69. Taddio reported that circumcised boys had higher pain and cry scores during routine immunisation at 4-6 months of age than uncircumcised boys70 and scores were again higher if circumcision was unaccompanied by analgesia compared with those receiving topical anaesthesia71.

Newborn infants subjected to a variety of noxious stimuli have hormonal, physiological and behavioural responses72. There have been two recent consensus statements on the prevention and management of pain in the newborn73,74 which should be used to guide the clinical approach to analgesia for circumcision if such an operation should be deemed necessary. Both statements emphasise that compared with older age groups newborns may experience a greater sensitivity to pain, such pain may have long-term consequences, and a lack of behavioural response (for example, lack of crying) does not necessarily indicate a lack of pain.

While general anaesthesia will often be used for circumcision beyond the neonatal period it has rarely been considered as an option for newborn circumcision. Local or regional anaesthesia for newborn circumcision has been provided by local application of a eutectic mixture of local anaesthetics (EMLA cream), dorsal penile nerve block (DPNB), penile ring block (PRB) and caudal epidural block.

Recent trials have demonstrated that combined analgesia and local anaesthesia (for example, pre- and post-operative paracetamol, EMLA cream to the abdomen and foreskin [Studies have shown this to be inadequate, and until recently EMLA was contraindicated for newborns because of the risk of methemoglobinemia], oral sucrose, and DPNB or PRB75), are more effective than either alone74,76,77. In Australia, most circumcisions are undertaken in boys older than six months under a general anaesthetic, with local anaesthetic often being administered during the general anaesthetic.

9. TECHNIQUE OF CIRCUMCISION

When a circumcision is performed in an older child it is usually performed under general anaesthesia and regional block78.

There are numerous descriptions of circumcision but in most, the following steps are undertaken78:

  1. Any residual adhesions between the inner surface of the foreskin and the glans are separated until the coronal groove is fully exposed circumferentially. Any smegma is removed.
  2. The foreskin is returned to its normal position and a dorsal slit is made, stopping short of the coronal groove.
  3. A similar manoeuvre is performed on the ventral surface as far as the frenulum.
  4. The foreskin is excised around each side leaving a rim of inner surface adjacent to the coronal groove.
  5. The edges of the foreskin are retracted to enable haemostasis. Usually the vessels are ligated with absorbable suture, or diathermied.
  6. The edges of the foreskin are sutured around the circumference with interrupted absorbable sutures.
  7. No circumferential dressing is applied, because of the risk of making the glans ischaemic if swelling occurs.

Potential intraoperative problems include:

  1. Removal of excessive skin
  2. Removal of inadequate skin
  3. Haemorrhage
  4. Injury to the urethra

Early postoperative complications include bleeding, infection and glanular ulceration.

REFERENCES:

  1. Gollaher DL. Circumcision: a history of the world's most controversial surgery. Basic Books, New York, 2000.
  2. Denniston GC, Hodges FM, Milos MF, eds. Male and female circumcision: medical, legal and ethical considerations in pediatric practice. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, 1999.
  3. Lerman SE, Liao JC. Neonatal circumcision. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2001 Dec;48:1539-57.
  4. Canadian Paediatric Society, Fetus and Newborn Committee. Neonatal circumcision revisited. CMAJ. 1996 Mar 15;154:769-80.
  5. American Academy of Pediatrics, Task Force on Circumcision. Circumcision Policy Statement. Pediatrics. 1999 Mar;103:686-93.
  6. Lannon CM, Bailey A, Fleischman A, et al. Circumcision debate. Pediatrics 2000;105:641-2.
  7. Williams PL, Bannister LH, et al (eds). Gray's Anatomy, 38th ed, Churchill Livingstone, New York, 1995;1857-58.
  8. Williams PL, Bannister LH, et al (eds). Gray's Anatomy, 38th ed, Churchill Livingstone, New York, 1995;216.
  9. Gairdner D. The fate of the foreskin. A study of circumcision. BMJ 1949;24:1433-37.
  10. Baskin L. Circumcision. In: Baskin S, Kogan B, Duckett J, eds. Handbook of Pediatric Urology, 1st ed San Francisco: Lippincott-Raven, 1997;2-3.
  11. American Academy of Pediatrics: Task Force on Circumcision. Pediatrics. 1989 Aug;84:388-91.
  12. Rickwood AM, Walter J. Is phimosis overdiagnosed in boys and are too many circumcisions performed in consequence? Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 1989 Sep;71:275-7.
  13. Rickwood AM. Medical indications for circumcision. BJU Int 1999;83(Suppl 1):45-51.
  14. Stenram A, Malmfors G, Okmian L. Circumcision for phimosis - Indications and results. Acta Paediatr Scand. 1986 Mar;75(2):321-3.
  15. Shankar KR, Rickwood AMK. The incidence of phimosis in boys. BJU Int. 1999 Jul;84:101-2.
  16. Rickwood AM, Kenny SE, Donnell SC. Towards evidence based circumcision of English boys: survey of trends in practice. BMJ. 2000 Sep 30;321:792-3.
  17. Rickwood AM, Hemalatha V, Batcup G, et al. Phimosis in boys. Br J Urol. 1980 Apr;52:147-50.
  18. Clemmensen O, Krogh J, Petri M. The histologic spectrum of prepuces from patients with phimosis. Am J Dermatopathol. 1988 Apr;10:104-8.
  19. Kikiros CS, Beasley SW, Woodward AA. The response of phimosis to local steroid application. Pediatr Surg Int 1993;8:329-32.
  20. Wright J. The treatment of childhood phimosis with topical steroid. Aust N Z J Surg. 1994 May;64:327-8.
  21. Escala JM, Rickwood AMK. Balanitis. Br J Urol. 1989 Feb;63:196-7.
  22. Fakjian N, Hunter S, et al. An argument for circumcision. Prevention of balanitis in the adult. Arch Dermatol. 1990 Aug;126:1046-7.
  23. Williams J, Morrison P, Richardson J. Paraphimosis in elderly men. Am J Emerg Med. 1995 May;13:351-3.
  24. Craig JC, Knight JF, Sueshkumar P, et al. Effect of circumcision on incidence of urinary tract infection in preschool boys. J Pediatr. 1996 Jan;128:23-7.
  25. Hellstrom A, Hanson E, Hansson S, et al. Association between urinary symptoms at 7 years old and previous urinary tract infection. Arch Dis Child. 1991 Feb;66:232-4.
  26. Ginsburg CM, McCracken GH Jr. Urinary tract infections in young infants. Pediatrics. 1982 Apr;69:409-12.
  27. Winberg J, Bollgren I, Gothefors L, et al. The prepuce: a mistake of nature? Lancet. 1989 Mar 18;1:598-9.
  28. Pisacane A, Graziano L, Mazzarella G, et al. Breast-feeding and urinary tract infection. J Pediatr. 1992 Jan;120:87-9.
  29. Wiswell TE, Smith FR, Bass JW. Decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male infants. Pediatrics. 1985 May;75:901-3.
  30. Wiswell TE, Roscelli JD. Corroborative evidence for the decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male infants. Pediatrics. 1986 Jul;78:96-9.
  31. Schoen EJ, Colby CJ, Ray GT. Newborn circumcision decreases incidence and costs of urinary tract infections during the first year of life. Pediatrics. 2000 Apr;105(4 Pt 1):789-93.
  32. Herzog LW. Urinary tract infections and circumcision. A case-control study. Am J Dis Child 1989;143:348-50.
  33. Crain EF, Gershel JC. Urinary tract infections in febrile infants younger than 8 weeks of age. Pediatrics. 1990 Sep;86(3):363-7.
  34. Spach DH. Stapleton AE. Stamm WE. Lack of circumcision increases the risk of urinary tract infection in young men. JAMA. 1992 Feb 5;267:679-81.
  35. Rushton HG. Majd M. Pyelonephritis in male infants: how important is the foreskin?. J Urol. 1992 Aug;148:733-6; discussion 737-8.
  36. Kashani IA, Faraday R. The risk of urinary tract infection in uncircumcised male infants. International Pediatrics 1989;4:44-5.
  37. To T, Agha M, Dick PT, Feldman W. Cohort study on circumcision of newborn boys and subsequent risk of urinary-tract infection Lancet. 1998 Dec 5;352:1813-6.
  38. Christakis DA, Harvey E, Zerr M, et al. A trade-off analysis of routine newborn circumcision. Pediatrics. 2000 Jan;105:246-9.
  39. Winberg J. Andersen HJ. Bergstrom T. Jacobsson B. Larson H. Lincoln K. Epidemiology of symptomatic urinary tract infection in childhood. Acta Paediatr Scand Suppl. 1974;(252):1-20.
  40. Panaretto K. Craig J. Knight J. Howman-Giles R. Sureshkumar P. Roy L. Risk factors for recurrent urinary tract infection in preschool children. J Paediatr Child Health. 1999 Oct;35:454-9.
  41. Van Howe, RS. Does circumcision influence sexually transmitted diseases?: a literature review. BJU Int. 1999 Jan;83 Suppl 1:52-62.
  42. Parker SW, Stewart AJ, Wren M, et al. Circumcision and sexually transmissible disease. Med J Aust. 1983 Sep 17;2:288-90.
  43. Donovan B, Bassett I, Bosworth NJ. Male circumcision and common sexually transmissible diseases in a developed nation setting. Genitourin Med. 1994 Oct;70:317-20.
  44. Smith GL, Greenup PR, Takafugi ET. Circumcision as a risk factor for urethritis in racial groups. Am J Public Health. 1987 Apr;77:452-4.
  45. Cameron DW, Simonsen JN, et al. Female to male transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type I: risk factors for seroconversion in men. Lancet. 1989 Aug 19;2:403-7.
  46. Moses S, Bailey RC, Ronald AR. Male circumcision: assessment of health benefits and risks. Sex Sex Transm Infect. 1998 Oct;74:368-73.
  47. De Vincenzi I, Mertens T. Male circumcision: a role in HIV prevention? AIDS. 1994 Feb;8:153-60.
  48. Quigley MA, Weiss HA, Hayes RJ. Male circumcision as a measure to control HIV infection and other sexually transmitted diseases. Curr Opin Infect Dis. 2001 Feb;14:71-5.
  49. O'Farrell N, Egger M. Circumcision in men and the prevention of HIV infection: a "meta-analysis" revisited. Int J STD AIDS. 2000 Mar;11:137-42.
  50. Castellsagué X, Bosch FX, Munoz N, et al. Male circumcision, penile human papillomavirus infection, and cervical cancer in female partners. N Engl J Med. 2002 Apr 11;346:1105-12.
  51. Adami H-O, Trichopoulos D. Cervical cancer and the elusive male factor. N Engl J Med. 2002 Apr 11;346:1160-1.
  52. Dean A. Epithelioma of the penis. J Urol 1945;33:252-83.
  53. Lenowitz H, Graham AP. Carcinoma of the penis. J Urol 1946;56:458-84.
  54. Dagher R, Selzer ML, Lapides J. Carcinoma of the penis and the anti-circumcision crusade. J Urol. 1973 Jul;110:79-80.
  55. Bissada NK, Morcos RR, El-Senoussi M. Post-circumcision carcinoma of the penis. I. Clinical aspects. J Urol. 1986 Feb;135:283-5.
  56. Magoha GAO, Kaale RF. Epidemiological and clinical aspects of carcinoma of penis at Kenyatta National Hospital. East Afr Med J. 1995 Jun;72:359-61.
  57. Hellberg D, Valentin J, Eklund T, et al. Penile cancer: is there an epidemiological role for smoking and sexual behaviour? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1987 Nov 21;295:1306-8.
  58. Brinton LA, Li JY, Rong SV, et al. Risk factors for penile cancer: results from a case-control study in China. Int J Cancer. 1991 Feb 20;47:504-9.
  59. Frisch M, Friis S, Kruger Kjaer S, et al. Falling incidence of penis cancer in an uncircumcised population (Denmark 1943-90). BMJ. 1995 Dec 2;311:1471.
  60. Svoboda JS, Van Howe RS, Dwyer JG. Informed consent for neonatal circumcision: an ethical and legal conundrum. J Contemp Health Law Policy. 2000 Winter;17:61-133.
  61. Williams N, Kapila L. Complications of circumcision. Br J Surg. 1993 Oct;80:1231-6.
  62. Speert H. Circumcision of the newborn: An appraisal of the present status. Obstet Gynecol 1953;2:164-72.
  63. Patel H. The problem of routine circumcision. Can Med Assoc J. 1966 Sep 10;95;576-81.
  64. Fraser IA, Allen MJ, Bagshaw PF, et al. A randomised trial to assess childhood circumcision with the Plastibell device compared to a conventional dissection technique. Br J Surg. 1981 Aug;68:593-5.
  65. Kaplan GW. Complications of circumcision. Urol Clin North Am. 1983 Aug;10:543-9.
  66. Griffiths DW, Atwell JD, Freeman NV. A prospective study of the indications and morbidity of circumcision in children. Eur Urol. 1985;11:184-7.
  67. Boyle GJ, Svoboda JS, Price CP, Turner JN. Circumcision of healthy boys: criminal assault? J Law Med 2000;7:301-10.
  68. Brown MS, Brown CA. Circumcision decision: prominence of social concerns. Pediatrics. 1987 Aug;80:215-9.
  69. Anand KJ. Pain, plasticity, and premature birth: a prescription for permanent suffering? Nat Med. 2000 Sep;6:971-3.
  70. Taddio A, Goldbach M, Ipp M, et al. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain responses during vaccination in boys. Lancet. 1995 Feb 4;345:291-2.
  71. Taddio A, Katz J, Ilersich AL, et al. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. Lancet. 1997 Mar 1;349:599-603.
  72. Anand KJ, Hickey PR. Pain and its effects in the human neonate and fetus. N Engl J Med. 1987 Nov 19;317:1321-9.
  73. American Academy of Pediatrics and Canadian Paediatric Society. Prevention and management of pain and stress in the neonate. Pediatrics 2000 Feb;105:454-61.
  74. Anand KJS. Consensus statement for the prevention and management of pain in the newborn. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001 Feb;155:173-80.
  75. Taddio A, Pollock N, Gilbert-MacLeod C, et al. Combined analgesia and local anesthesia to minimize pain during circumcision. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000 Jun;154:620-3.
  76. Taddio A. Pain management for neonatal circumcision. Paediatr Drugs. 2001;3:101-11.
  77. Litman RS. Anesthesia and analgesia for newborn circumcision. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2001 Feb;56:114-7.
  78. Beasley SW, Hutson JM, Auldist AW. Circumcision. In: Essential paediatric surgery. London Edward Arnold 1996;98-106.
  79. [Taylor JP, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: Specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. J Urol. 1996; 77:291-295
    This reference is unaccountably missing.     ]

Date:September 2002

Paediatrics and Child Health Division

This publication has been compiled by the Paediatrics & Child Health Division of The Royal Australasian College of Physicians for use by members of the community and health professionals. The information and advice is based on current medical knowledge and practice as at the date of publication. It is intended as a general guide only and where relevant, not as a substitute for individual medical advice. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians and its employees accept no responsibility for any consequences arising from relying upon the information contained in this publication.

Related pages:

Back to the Intactivism index page.