Re: The medical evidence on non-therapeutic circumcision of infants and boys—setting the record straight

We read with interest a review by Deacon and Muir (‘D&M’) that concluded so-called ‘non-therapeutic’ male circumcision (NTMC) of infants and children provides insufficient benefits and that risks were too high for it to be recommended in the UK [1]. Instead, they suggest delay until the boy is old enough to make his own decision. However, in contrast to the UK, policy statements by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) [2] and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [3], finding benefits of NTMC exceed risks, are evidence-based.

Flaws in D&M’s arguments include reliance on small, weak, out-of-date or inappropriate studies contradicted by more recent high-quality evidence. Unlike systematic reviews and meta-analyses, D&M did not engage sufficiently with existing evidence. Studies cited were not rated by quality.

They ignored a landmark high-quality study by CDC researchers of adverse events from 1.4 million neonatal and older age US males [4]. NTMC risk in infants was 0.4% and was 20-fold higher at age 1–9 and 10-fold higher at age ≥10. Similar values were cited in the AAP’s policy statement. Thus D&M’s claim of 1–5% risk may apply in non-US countries or to later circumcision.

Also missing were key studies and important critiques of various publications they cited, as well as meta-analyses, and systematic reviews of benefits and risks (summarised in ref. [5]). If included, D&M’s overall conclusion would have been more balanced. Instead of number-needed-to-treat (NNT) for each condition, they should have combined all such information into an overall risk-benefit analysis. An informed ‘big picture’ might then have emerged to better inform parents and practitioners. Several risk-benefit analyses have been published over the past decade, including ours in ‘Mayo Clinic Proceedings’ cited by the CDC. The only one for the UK found benefits exceeded risks by 200:1, with failure to perform NTMC in infancy likely resulting in at least one adverse medical condition among over half of uncircumcised males during their lifetime [6]. Contrary to D&M’s assertion, the data we used for risk-benefit analyses were not ‘over-estimates,’ but came from high-quality studies.

Contrary to their claim that the foreskin becomes fully retractile in 99% by age sixteen, our systematic review, involving 43 studies, included one finding full retractability was 51.1% in 1834 uncircumcised adolescent boys [7] and averaged 96.6% in men, being 92.2% in British National Servicemen [8].

D&M criticise a meta-analysis of lifetime UTI risk (D&M-ref22) because it contained only one study of men. But men in that study attended a STI clinic with infection symptoms, whereas the two studies D&M suggested for inclusion lacked UTI cases. D&M ignored the meta-analysis group aged 1–16 years. Thus, D&M’s NNT > 100 claim is misguided as it applies to infants only. Eisenberg et al. found number of NTMCs needed to prevent one UTI in infants was 39, decreasing to 29 when other sequelae were included [9]. In comparison, childhood vaccination prevents one outpatient visit and one hospitalisation for influenza for every 50 and 1031–3050 vaccinated children, respectively [10].

D&M argue that infant NTMC would result in more boys needing antibiotics for postoperative wound infection than would need them for a UTI. Their claim is based on a 10% estimated post-NTMC wound infection prevalence. But this value contradicted their earlier statement that the overall complication rate for infant and paediatric NTMC is 1–5%. How can the prevalence of one specific complication (infection) be higher than the overall prevalence?

To resolve this, we translated the German language narrative review they cited for the 10% figure (D&M-ref125) and followed the reference trail through two further review articles to the primary source: [11]. This cited two very small n values for infections: n = 2 (4%) for boys circumcised with a Plastibell device and n = 5 (10%) for boys circumcised with scissors. Thus, the 10% figure is a maximum value in a small study, applies to an old method, and is for older boys, not infants, so is misleading. D&M also assume that all of those 10% would require antibiotics. In fact, most such infections are superficial and resolve with local treatment. A study of 5521 NTMCs noted infection in 23 (0.4%) [12]. Of these, only 4 (17%) required antibiotics, the rest resolving with topical antiseptics.

In contrast, antibiotics are advised for all UTIs in infants, even if the UTI is merely suspected. Based on a NNT of 100 for infant UTI prevention by NTMC and the estimate of 0.4% for infections [12], instead of the much lower 0.0834% in the large US study [4] (where only 2.2% of those, i.e., 0.0018%, were likely NTMC-related), one can calculate n = 10 UTIs prevented from 1000 circumcisions, and n = 4 wound infections. If the figure of 17% of wound infections requiring antibiotics is representative, then 0.7 of those 4 wound infections would need antibiotic treatment, as opposed to all ten UTIs. Infant NTMC therefore results in a substantial net reduction in antibiotic use even when erring in D&M’s favour, and without considering later UTIs and other infections also prevented by infant NTMC. When coupled with the increasing problem of antibiotic resistance, particularly in relation to infant UTIs, NTMC in infancy represents a significant benefit.

For STIs, D&M fail to explain how in socioeconomically advantaged countries most HIV infections occur from receptive anal intercourse in men-who-have-sex-with-men (MSM). In insertive MSM, risk is substantially lower in those circumcised. D&M suggest that some men forego condom use after circumcision, but ignore a 2021 meta-analysis by Gao showing no such decline in condom use. While current HIV treatments extend lifespan, D&M did not acknowledge patients’ lifelong elevated risk of HIV-associated comorbidities. D&M refer to studies by Van Howe, but not the numerous critiques of his methods and flawed statistics [5]. Castellsagué et al.’s critique was titled: ‘HPV and circumcision: A biased, inaccurate and misleading meta-analysis.’

Their review of penile cancer was misleading. In all studies, penile cancer prevalence was much lower in circumcised men. NNT for uncircumcised males was 900 for Denmark and 600 for the US [13]. Based on average UK male life expectancy of ~79 years, 33.15 million male population, and ~700 cases/annum (Cancer Research UK), one can calculate a NNT of ~600 for the UK if penile cancer were unique to uncircumcised males, and ~1000 if only three-times higher. Circumcised men are also at lower risk of prostate cancer. Increasing circumcision prevalence in the UK from the current ~20% to ~90% should result in fewer cases.

D&M misconstrue a multinational study by Castellsagué et al. of HPV and cervical cancer (D&M-ref68) which included not just male partners of high-risk, but also those of intermediate risk. Contrary to D&M, RCT data exist. While HPV vaccination has lowered HPV prevalence in the UK, only 64.9% of year 9 females completed the 2-dose course in year 2019/2020, quadrivalent and nonavalent HPV vaccines cover 2 low-risk types, and 2 and 7, not all 14, oncogenic HPV types, and lifelong effectiveness is not assured.

Our recent meta-analysis of all 27 studies (1.5 million males), that included D&M’s reference 85, found risk of meatal stenosis was 0.656% [14]. Most diagnoses are actually a ventral ‘meatal web’ and are asymptomatic, so clinically nonsignificant.

Because adverse event risks are 10–20-fold higher for circumcision of non-neonatal males [4], and circumcision reduces risk of infections and other conditions over the lifetime, NTMC is cost-saving.

For pain, effective local anaesthetic methods are mandated. The CDC stated, ‘painless circumcision [by Gomco clamp] is possible in almost all [93.3%] newborns if it is performed during the first week of life.’ D&M’s reference 83 disputed those figures and other data finding <2% experience excessive pain. D&M miscommunicate a survey of parents’ perceptions during the 6 weeks following their newborn sons’ circumcision (D&M-ref103). Pain scores were not increased ‘for up to 6 weeks,’ and the study stated, ‘no long-term adverse effects were noted in the 6 weeks of follow-up.’ D&M claim that NTMC pain has long-term effects but cite as support pain during neonatal intensive care management, heel sticks and cardiac surgery. Contradicting speculation that NTMC pain causes central nervous system changes affecting empathy, a 2020 study by Miani found no such association.

Sexual function was addressed, but rather than a balanced overview of the considerable physiological and epidemiological evidence, as well as RCTs and meta-analyses finding similar or better function in circumcised men, D&M cite seriously flawed studies (D&M-refs114&123); see [5] for critiques. In addition, D&M cite an online post by Van Howe (D&M-ref113) of his peer-review of the CDC’s draft policy. This failed to sway the CDC.

Table 1 summarises the advantages of infant NTMC as compared to later age circumcision. Our extensive systematic review of the contrasting evidence found that high-quality data supports NTMC [5]. NTMC is, moreover, legal and ethical. Jacobs 2013 interpreted Article 24(3) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [15] as favouring NTMC, since not circumcising boys has been deemed as prejudicial to their health. The AAP and CDC found benefits of NTMC exceeded risks, and, noting cultural sensitivities, recommended parental choice, education, insurance coverage, and provider training.

Table 1 Issues to consider for timing of male circumcision: neonatal vs. later. Data availability

For data referred to in this Comment article please email the first author.

References

Deacon M, Muir G. What is the medical evidence on non-therapeutic child circumcision? Int J Impot Res. 2022. Online ahead of print.

American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. Male circumcision. Pediatrics. 2012;130:e756–85.

Article  Google Scholar 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Background, methods, and synthesis of scientific information used to inform “Information for Providers to Share with Male Patients and Parents Regarding Male Circumcision and the Prevention of HIV Infection, Sexually Transmitted Infections, and other Health Outcomes”. 2018. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/58457.

El Bcheraoui C, Zhang X, Cooper CS, Rose CE, Kilmarx PH, Chen RT. Rates of adverse events associated with male circumcision in US medical settings, 2001 to 2010. JAMA Pediatr. 2014;168:625–34.

Article  Google Scholar 

Morris BJ, Moreton S, Krieger JN. Critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision: a systematic review. J Evid Based Med. 2019;12:263–90.

Article  Google Scholar 

Morris BJ, Krieger JN. Non-therapeutic male circumcision. Paediatr Child Health. 2020;30:102–7. https://www.paediatricsandchildhealthjournal.co.uk/action/doSearch?text1=Morris+BJ%2C+Krieger+JN.+Non-therapeutic+male+circumcision.&field1=AllField.

Article  Google Scholar 

Yang C, Liu X, Wei GH. Foreskin development in 10421 Chinese boys aged 0-18 years. World J Pediatr. 2009;5:312–5.

Article  Google Scholar 

Osmond TE. Is routine circumcision advisable? J R Army Med Corp. 1953;99:254.

CAS  Google Scholar 

Eisenberg ML, Galusha D, Kennedy WA, Cullen MR. The relationship between neonatal circumcision, urinary tract infection, and health. World J Mens Health. 2018;36:176–82.

Article  Google Scholar 

Lewis EN, Griffin MR, Szilagyi PG, Zhu Y, Edwards KM, Poehling KA. Childhood influenza: number needed to vaccinate to prevent 1 hospitalization or outpatient visit. Pediatrics. 2007;120:467–72.

Article  Google Scholar 

Fraser IA, Allen MJ, Bagshaw PF, Johnstone M. A randomized trial to assess childhood circumcision with the Plastibell device compared to a conventional dissection technique. Br J Surg. 1981;68:593–5.

CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Gee WF, Ansell JS. Neonatal circumcision: a ten-year overview: with comparison of the Gomco clamp and the Plastibell device. Pediatrics. 1976;58:824–7.

CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Kochen M, McCurdy S. Circumcision and the risk of cancer of the penis. A life-table analysis. Am J Dis Child. 1980;134:484–6.

CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Morris BJ, Krieger JN. Does circumcision increase meatal stenosis risk?–A systematic review and meta-analysis. Urology 2017;110:16–26.

Article  Google Scholar 

United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Convention on the Rights of the Child. 44/25 20 November 1989. http://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx.

Download references

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

Author informationAuthors and AffiliationsContributions

Concept and structure: BJM. Drafting of the paper: BJM. Critical revisions and redrafting: SM, JDK, and GC. Supervision: BJM.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Brian J. Morris.

Ethics declarations Competing interests

BJM is a member of the Circumcision Academy of Australia, a not-for-profit, government registered, incorporated medical society that provides evidence-based information on male circumcision to parents, practitioners and others, as well as contact details of doctors who perform the procedure (website: https://www.circumcisionaustralia.org). SM is an editor of, and contributor to, http://www.circfacts.org, a website that provides evidence-based information on male circumcision. JNK is co-inventor of a circumcision device patented by University of Washington. He has not received any income from this. The authors have no financial, religious, or other affiliations that might influence the topic of male circumcision.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this articleVerify currency and authenticity via CrossMarkCite this article

Morris, B.J., Moreton, S., Krieger, J.N. et al. Re: The medical evidence on non-therapeutic circumcision of infants and boys—setting the record straight. Int J Impot Res (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00579-z

Download citation

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Get shareable link

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif