Fleeting foreskins: the misclassification of male circumcision status

Parental factors affecting the circumcision of non-Muslim Chinese boys include education and family history

AIM

This study investigated the prevalence of circumcision among non-Muslim schoolboys in Urumqi, China, and how acceptable their parents found the practice.

METHODS

A convenient cluster sample of non-Muslim schoolboys (n = 3614) aged six to 15 years of age and 873 mothers and 927 fathers completed self-administered questionnaires. We compared the consistency of the circumcision status reported by students and their parents and analysed the factors that influenced the parents to have their child circumcised.

RESULTS

The mean age at circumcision was 8.3 years and the adjusted prevalence was 46.2%. Up to 45.4% of fathers and 66% of mothers with uncircumcised sons were willing to circumcise their sons after receiving further information on circumcision. Mothers were more likely to support circumcision if they had higher education levels and higher family income, were employed as government officials and had family members who had been circumcised, including their husband. Fathers were more likely to support circumcision if they were highly educated and had been circumcised themselves.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence and acceptability of circumcision were higher than expected in this traditional schoolboy population in Urumqi, China. Factors that increased parental support for circumcision included high education and the father being circumcised.

Sexually transmitted infections and male circumcision: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The claim that circumcision reduces the risk of sexually transmitted infections has been repeated so frequently that many believe it is true. A systematic review and meta-analyses were performed on studies of genital discharge syndrome versus genital ulcerative disease, genital discharge syndrome, nonspecific urethritis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, genital ulcerative disease, chancroid, syphilis, herpes simplex virus, human papillomavirus, and contracting a sexually transmitted infection of any type. Chlamydia, gonorrhea, genital herpes, and human papillomavirus are not significantly impacted by circumcision. Syphilis showed mixed results with studies of prevalence suggesting intact men were at great risk and studies of incidence suggesting the opposite. Intact men appear to be of greater risk for genital ulcerative disease while at lower risk for genital discharge syndrome, nonspecific urethritis, genital warts, and the overall risk of any sexually transmitted infection. In studies of general populations, there is no clear or consistent positive impact of circumcision on the risk of individual sexually transmitted infections. Consequently, the prevention of sexually transmitted infections cannot rationally be interpreted as a benefit of circumcision, and any policy of circumcision for the general population to prevent sexually transmitted infections is not supported by the evidence in the medical literature.

Male circumcision

Male circumcision consists of the surgical removal of some, or all, of the foreskin (or prepuce) from the penis. It is one of the most common procedures in the world. In the United States, the procedure is commonly performed during the newborn period. In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) convened a multidisciplinary workgroup of AAP members and other stakeholders to evaluate the evidence regarding male circumcision and update the AAP's 1999 recommendations in this area. The Task Force included AAP representatives from specialty areas as well as members of the AAP Board of Directors and liaisons representing the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Task Force members identified selected topics relevant to male circumcision and conducted a critical review of peer-reviewed literature by using the American Heart Association's template for evidence evaluation. Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks; furthermore, the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for families who choose it. Specific benefits from male circumcision were identified for the prevention of urinary tract infections, acquisition of HIV, transmission of some sexually transmitted infections, and penile cancer. Male circumcision does not appear to adversely affect penile sexual function/sensitivity or sexual satisfaction. It is imperative that those providing circumcision are adequately trained and that both sterile techniques and effective pain management are used. Significant acute complications are rare. In general, untrained providers who perform circumcisions have more complications than well-trained providers who perform the procedure, regardless of whether the former are physicians, nurses, or traditional religious providers. Parents are entitled to factually correct, nonbiased information about circumcision and should receive this information from clinicians before conception or early in pregnancy, which is when parents typically make circumcision decisions. Parents should determine what is in the best interest of their child. Physicians who counsel families about this decision should provide assistance by explaining the potential benefits and risks and ensuring that parents understand that circumcision is an elective procedure. The Task Force strongly recommends the creation, revision, and enhancement of educational materials to assist parents of male infants with the care of circumcised and uncircumcised penises. The Task Force also strongly recommends the development of educational materials for providers to enhance practitioners' competency in discussing circumcision's benefits and risks with parents. The Task Force made the following recommendations:Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, and the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for those families who choose it. Parents are entitled to factually correct, nonbiased information about circumcision that should be provided before conception and early in pregnancy, when parents are most likely to be weighing the option of circumcision of a male child. Physicians counseling families about elective male circumcision should assist parents by explaining, in a nonbiased manner, the potential benefits and risks and by ensuring that they understand the elective nature of the procedure. Parents should weigh the health benefits and risks in light of their own religious, cultural, and personal preferences, as the medical benefits alone may not outweigh these other considerations for individual families. Parents of newborn boys should be instructed in the care of the penis, regardless of whether the newborn has been circumcised or not. Elective circumcision should be performed only if the infant's condition is stable and healthy. Male circumcision should be performed by trained and competent practitioners, by using sterile techniques and effective pain management. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with newborn circumcision; thus, adequate analgesia should be provided whenever newborn circumcision is performed.Nonpharmacologic techniques (eg, positioning, sucrose pacifiers) alone are insufficient to prevent procedural and postprocedural pain and are not recommended as the sole method of analgesia. They should be used only as analgesic adjuncts to improve infant comfort during circumcision. If used, topical creams may cause a higher incidence of skin irritation in low birth weight infants, compared with infants of normal weight; penile nerve block techniques should therefore be chosen for this group of newborns. Key professional organizations (AAP, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Society of Anesthesiologists, the American College of Nurse Midwives, and other midlevel clinicians such as nurse practitioners) should work collaboratively to:Develop standards of trainee proficiency in the performance of anesthetic and procedure techniques, including suturing; Teach the procedure and analgesic techniques during postgraduate training programs; Develop educational materials for clinicians to enhance their own competency in discussing the benefits and risks of circumcision with parents; Offer educational materials to assist parents of male infants with the care of both circumcised and uncircumcised penises. The preventive and public health benefits associated with newborn male circumcision warrant third-party reimbursement of the procedure. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has endorsed this technical report.

The (mis)reporting of male circumcision status among men and women in Zambia and Swaziland: a randomized evaluation of interview methods

BACKGROUND

To date, male circumcision prevalence has been estimated using surveys of men self-reporting their circumcision status. HIV prevention trials and observational studies involving female participants also collect data on partners' circumcision status as a risk factor for HIV/STIs. A number of studies indicate that reports of circumcision status may be inaccurate. This study assessed different methods for improving self- and partner reporting of circumcision status.

METHODS/FINDINGS

The study was conducted in urban and rural Zambia and urban Swaziland. Men (N = 1264) aged 18-50 and their female partners (N = 1264), and boys (N = 840) aged 13-17 were enrolled. Participants were recruited from HIV counseling and testing sites, health centers, and surrounding communities. The study experimentally assessed methods for improving the reporting of circumcision status, including: a) a simple description of circumcision, b) a detailed description of circumcision, c) an illustration of a circumcised and uncircumcised penis, and d) computerized self-interviewing. Self-reports were compared to visual examination. For men, the error in reporting was largely unidirectional: uncircumcised men more often reported they were circumcised (2-7%), depending on setting. Fewer circumcised men misrepresented their status (0.05-5%). Misreporting by women was significantly higher (11-15%), with the error in both directions. A sizable number of women reported that they did not know their partner's circumcision status (3-8%). Computerized interviewing did not improve accuracy. Providing an illustration, particularly for illiterate participants, significantly improved reporting of circumcision status, decreasing misreporting among illiterate participants from 13% to 10%, although misreporting was not eliminated.

CONCLUSIONS

Study results suggest that the prevalence of circumcision may be overestimated in Zambia and Swaziland; the error in reporting is higher among women than among men. Improved reporting when a description or illustration is provided suggests that the source of the error is a lack of understanding of male circumcision.

Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Male circumcision provides long-term indirect protection to women by reducing the risk of heterosexual men becoming infected with HIV. In this Review, we summarise the evidence for a direct effect of male circumcision on the risk of women becoming infected with HIV. We identified 19 epidemiological analyses, from 11 study populations, of the association of male circumcision and HIV risk in women. A random-effects meta-analysis of data from the one randomised controlled trial and six longitudinal analyses showed little evidence that male circumcision directly reduces risk of HIV in women (summary relative risk 0.80, 95% CI 0.53-1.36). Definitive data would come from a further randomised controlled trial of circumcision among men infected with HIV in serodiscordant heterosexual relationships, but this would involve enrolling about 10 000 couples and is likely to be logistically unfeasible. As circumcision services for HIV prevention are scaled-up in high HIV prevalence settings, rapid integration with existing prevention strategies would maximise benefits for both men and women. Rigorous monitoring is essential to ensure that any adverse effects on women are detected and minimised.

Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection among heterosexual African American men attending Baltimore sexually transmitted disease clinics

BACKGROUND

Male circumcision has received international attention as an intervention for reducing HIV infection among high-risk heterosexual men; however, few US studies have evaluated its association with the risk of HIV infection.

METHODS

We analyzed visit records for heterosexual African American men who underwent HIV testing while attending sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics in Baltimore, Maryland, from 1993 to 2000. We used multivariable binomial regression to evaluate associations between circumcision and the risk of HIV infection among visits by patients with known and unknown HIV exposure.

RESULTS

Overall, 1096 (2.7%) of 40,571 clinic visits yielded positive HIV test results. Among 394 visits by patients with known HIV exposure, circumcision was significantly associated with lower HIV prevalence (10.2% vs. 22.0%; adjusted prevalence rate ratio [PRR], 0.49 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.93]). Conversely, among 40,177 visits by patients with unknown HIV exposure, circumcision was not associated with reduced HIV prevalence (2.5% vs. 3.3%; adjusted PRR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.86-1.15]), and age >or=25 years old and diagnosis of ulcerative STD were associated with increased prevalence.

CONCLUSIONS

Circumcision was associated with substantially reduced HIV risk in patients with known HIV exposure, suggesting that results of other studies demonstrating reduced HIV risk for circumcision among heterosexual men likely can be generalized to the US context.

Male circumcision and women's risk of incident chlamydial, gonococcal, and trichomonal infections

BACKGROUND

Male circumcision (MC) decreases the risk of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) acquisition in men. We explored associations between MC of the primary sex partner and women's risk of acquisition of chlamydial (Ct), gonococcal (GC), or trichomonal (Tv) infections.

METHODS

We analyzed data from a prospective study on hormonal contraception and incident human immunodeficiency virus/sexually transmitted infection (STI) among women from Uganda, Zimbabwe, and Thailand. At enrollment and each follow-up visit, we collected endocervical swabs for polymerase chain reaction identification of Ct and GC; Tv was diagnosed by wet mount. Using Cox proportional hazards models, we compared time to STI acquisition for women according to their partner's MC status.

RESULTS

Among 5925 women (2180 from Uganda, 2228 from Zimbabwe, and 1517 from Thailand), 18.6% reported a circumcised primary partner at baseline, 70.8% reported an uncircumcised partner, and 9.7% did not know their partner's circumcision status. During follow-up, 408, 305, and 362 participants had a first incident Ct, GC, or Tv infection, respectively. In multivariate analysis, after controlling for contraceptive method, age, age at coital debut, and country, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) comparing women with circumcised partners with those with uncircumcised partners for Ct was 1.25 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.96-1.63]; for GC, adjusted HR 0.99 (95% CI 0.74-1.31); for Tv, adjusted HR 1.05 (95% CI 0.80-1.36), and for the 3 STIs combined, adjusted HR 1.02 (95% CI 0.85-1.21).

CONCLUSIONS

MC was not associated with women's risk of acquisition of Ct, GC, or Tv infection in this cohort.

Human papillomavirus and circumcision: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Determine the relationship of circumcision status to the risk for genital infection with human papillomavirus (HPV).

METHODS

A MEDLINE search and a review of references in published articles were used to identify publications from peer-reviewed journals in Index Medicus with data on circumcision status in patients with and without HPV infections. Inclusion criteria included diagnosis by culture, biopsy, or PCR, determination of circumcision status by physical examination, and multiple site sampling including the shaft of the penis. A meta-analysis was performed with sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Sixteen articles contained data on circumcision status in patients with and without HPV infections. Eight studies used accurate diagnostic methods. Only three articles satisfied the strict inclusion criteria. There was no significant association between circumcision status and HPV infection (random-effects model summary effect OR=1.20, 95%CI=0.80-1.79) in these three studies. If the eight studies using accurate diagnostic methods are adjusted for the method of determining circumcision status and failure to sample the penile shaft using meta-regression the summary effects odds ratio is 1.25 (95%CI=0.95-1.67).

CONCLUSIONS

The medical literature does not support the claim that circumcision reduces the risk for genital HPV infection. To correctly assess the risk of HPV infection in circumcised males, the penile shaft needs to be sampled for HPV infection.

Neonatal Circumcision: A Review of the World’s Oldest and Most Controversial Operation

Untimely old, circumcision has elicited more controversy and war of words than any surgical procedure in history. Although previous claims of benefits like curing masturbation, gout, epilepsy, and even insanity were no doubt absurd, important research has shed light on real medical benefits of circumcision. In particular, the procedure has consistently shown to result in the decreased risk of debilitating and costly diseases such as HIV, cervical cancer, and infantile urinary tract infection. Because of advances in the understanding of the anatomy of the foreskin and pain conditioning in infants, prevailing attitudes have changed about anesthesia and analgesia during the procedure. This article objectively summarizes the bulk of significant medical literature over the last century to provide an accurate statement about what we know and what we do not know about neonatal circumcision, including its history, epidemiology, medical benefits, complications, contraindications, techniques, management for pain, and current controversies.

TARGET AUDIENCE

Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Family Physicians.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After completion of this article, the reader should be able to describe the evolution of circumcision, to list the potential benefits of circumcision, to outline the various neonatal circumcision techniques, and to summarize the data on the use of analgesia for circumcision.