I rely on the judgment of those who do not allow themselves to be carried away by preconceived ancient opinions in forming their own—F. Anton Mesmer (1734–1815), Dissertatio Physico-Medica de Planetarum Infiuxu, 1766

Circumcision is a common and persistently controversial surgical procedure.^{1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10} Despite only lukewarm support by learned bodies within medicine and the vocal opposition of a number of lay groups, the majority of American male neonales still undergo circumcision.3,4,5,11,12,13 The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the possible indications and contraindications for the performance of circumcision in early infancy (before 2 months of age) and to review the techniques, potential complications, and possible benefits and risks of the operation.

In Western medical practice, circumcision is defined as the surgical removal of the foreskin of the penis to near the coronal sulcus. This normally results in a penis where most or all of the glands is exposed while the organ is flaccid. The term circumcision is derived from the Latin circumcidere, which means to “cut around.”^14,15 The current surgical techniques for circumcision represent only one method for this type of surgery. Historically, in other cultures, many different types of ritual genital surgery have been performed on males-and in some instances on females—at varying ages.

It is difficult to present a balanced review of neonatal circumcision. Many of the available articles, especially those intended for a lay audience, include strong opinions that are not scientific do not encounter the events of adult life that necessitate circumcision (pediatricians); performed by those who rarely treat complications of their own surgery (obstetricians); and often championed by those who do not perform most neonatal procedures, but treat those patients in later life who have foreskin problems (urologists). Not surprisingly, no consensus emerges from a review of the literature. In this brief review, the best that can be achieved is a reasonable balance among the various positions. Each position is critiqued on the basis of objective data, or the lack thereof, to support it. The problem for the clinician is how this information is to be translated into recommendations for individual parents when they question whether neonatal circumcision is an appropriate choice for their child.

Removal of the foreskin is a procedure of obscure origin, practiced for more than 5000 years in many cultures.^{3,5,6,16,17,18,19,20,21} Herodotus, in his description of Egypt, noted that circumcision was already an “ancient custom.” Circumcisions are practiced in many African societies, among Arabs, and in some Pacific Islander societies. Jews constitute the major religious group in the United States that routinely performs ritual circumcision. Traditionally, male Jewish neonates undergo ritual circumcision at 8 days of age by a specially trained priest, the Mohel. For Jews, circumcision represents a covenant between man and God, marks the Jewish male as unique, and provides a physical sign of acceptance into his culture.^5,22 Circumcision performed on males—as well as occasionally females—at or near puberty is part of various rites de passage common in many non-Western societies.^5,14,23,24 In recent years, much has been written concerning serious health problems resulting from the universally condemned practice of female circumcision—a subject that will not be discussed in this chapter.^23,25

Recent years have witnessed a lively controversy concerning the continuation of the practice of circumcision.^{1,7,8,9,10,14,24,26,27} Although much of this controversy simply repeats existing data, information discovered in the past 10 years—specifically that concerning urinary tract infection (UTI)—has injected additional, predictably controversial information into the debate. Partially in response to these recent data, the 1989 American Academy of Pediatrics opinion papers on circumcision revealed a change in position from 1975. In 1975, they held the position that there were no absolute medical indications for routine neonate circumcision.²⁶ The position stated in 1989 is more balanced, concluding that circumcision has potential medical benefit as well as disadvantages and risks.²⁷

Although data on incidence are difficult to obtain, it appears that male neonatal circumcision was relatively uncommon in North America until the turn of the 20th century.¹⁹ For many years, approximately 75% of males in the United States were routinely circumcised at birth with minimal criticism of the practice.²⁷ Despite the controversy, the current circumcision rate for neonates remains approximately 60% in the United States. The frequency with which circumcision is performed varies by race, socioeconomic status, and locale.²⁸ In the United States, the operation is most common among whites of higher socioeconomic status who reside in the Midwest. Whether overall US rates are falling or staying essentially the same is another in the list of unsettled controversies in the circumcision issue. The rate for the operation probably has declined in recent years, especially in the Western world. Reliable US data are difficult to obtain. In Europe, the trend has been quite different.

Circumcision in England was relatively popular up through the 1930s, when approximately one third of English neonates underwent the procedure.^17,29 The percentage of English neonates who were circumcised fell to less than 10% in the 1950s with the advent of the National Health Service.³⁰ After this time, circumcision was no longer a reimbursable procedure, and an increasingly critical view of the value of routine neonatal circumcision developed among practitioners.¹⁷ Currently, the procedure is uncommonly performed and only 2% to 10% of English neonates are circumcised.³¹

There is considerable variation among other countries. In most continental European countries, especially Scandinavia, circumcision is uncommonly performed at birth except for ritual reasons. In Canada, the incidence of neonatal circumcision had been 55% to 66%, but it now has dropped to between 35% and 40%.³² Circumcision has been relatively common in Australia, where approximately 40% of Australian males are circumcised.³³ In 1979, circumcision rates for New Zealand averaged approximately 25%, reflecting a decline from the previous generation, where rates of circumcision approached 75%.³⁴

Nonreligious, routine neonatal circumcision is commonly proposed for a number of reasons. These arguments include, but are not limited to, the following:

  Avoidance of phimosis and paraphimosis in later life
  Improvement in penile hygiene
  Reduction in the incidence of neonatal UTI
  Prophylaxis against balanitis (inflammation of the glans penis) or balanoposthitis (inflammation of the glans penis and prepuce)
  Avoidance of penile carcinoma in later life
  Possible reduction in the incidence of cervical cancer
  Possible reduction in the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)
  Social reasons.

Neonatal circumcision remains an elective surgical procedure. Important contraindications to the operation include children with a known bleeding disorder, neonatal prematurity, or other circumstances where the condition of the child is either unstable or uncertain.²⁰ Routine circumcision should not be performed until after the first 12 hours (and preferably 24 hours) of life.^28,35 It is obviously prudent not to perform circumcision if skin lesions suggestive of Staphylococcus are present. Circumcision also is contraindicated in neonates with an anomaly of the external genitalia because the prepuce may be needed for subsequent plastic repair.⁶ Similarly, if after a dorsal slit is performed during a circumcision operation, a previously unrecognized anomaly of the glans is revealed, the procedure should be terminated and a urologist consulted. Phimosis is an uncommon, even rare diagnosis in neonates and is virtually never a valid indication for a newborn circumcision procedure (see definition, below). In contrast, as is discussed later, the operation may be medically indicated in certain children proved to be at high risk for UTI because of various anomalies of the upper urinary tract.

Before establishing any opinions in the circumcision controversy, some knowledge of the normal development and physiology of the foreskin is required.^{6,7,19,36,37,38} Embryologically, the prepuce appears at 8 weeks' gestation as an epidermal ring that subsequently grows over the surface of the glans penis. By the 20th week, formation of the prepuce is complete, with coverage of the entire glans and development of the definitive unrethral opening. Initially, there is no separation between the glans and the prepuce. The epithelial surfaces are fused and lined with stratified squamous epithelium. The separation between glans and prepuce is a slo process. A plane of division develops progressively, accompanying the production of desquamated cells and keratin. The epithelial layer between the glans and foreskin usually is incomplete at birth. Thus, it is normal for the foreskin to be nonretractable in most male neonates^19,39,40: In only 4% of neonates can the foreskin be retracted; in nearly one half, even the external urethral meatus cannot be visualized.⁶ As the child ages, the plane between foreskin and glans progressively separates.¹⁷ At 6 months, the prepuce is retractable in 20% of boys. By the age of 5 or 6, only about 10% of males have a foreskin that cannot be easily retracted. By puberty the incidence is approximately 1%.³⁶

Phimosis

Despite the physical appearance of the prepuce in prepubertal males, the inability to retract the foreskin does not establish the diagnosis of phimosis.^{6,17,19,36,37,39,41} Wright³⁷ defines “true” phimosis as “an abnormal degree of narrowing of the preputial opening causing obstruction to urine flow, or nonretractability persisting well into childhood.” When phimosis is suspected in younger children, it has been reported that many boys are successfully treated by the application of potent topical steroids (e.g., 0.05% betamethasone valerate). It is less clear whether such therapy results in a permanent cure. Obviously, an adequate circumcision is also curative.

These data indicate that a nonretractable foreskin in boys less than 3 years of age is a normal finding; very uncommonly, nonretractability is due to true phimosis.^17,42 Phimosis, if diagnosed later in a child's life, may respond to medical as opposed to surgical treatment in at least some cases.

Penlie Hygiene

Hygiene is a common reason cited by both parents and health professionals as a reason for circumcision, but dismissed in importance by other, qualified observers.^{3,17,36,43,44} Genital hygiene is complicated by parental reticence in the instruction of children, inadequate information concerning the natural history of the foreskin, and sociocultural differences in identification of foreskin-related problems.⁴⁵ Both mothers and health professionals have a poor understanding of routine male genital hygiene and the normal anatomy of the foreskin.^12,43,46 In general, it is argued that circumcision aids in improved cleanliness by making it easier to achieve.^5,47 Those opposed to circumcision counter, however, that simple retraction of the foreskin (when appropriate and possible) and cleansing with soap and water are all that generally is required for adequate cleaning. Yet, it is easier to promote genital cleanliness than to achieve it: Irritative and inflammatory disorders clearly are more common in those uncircumcised in childhood and early adolescence, although most of these problems are minor.^45,48 In some subclasses of patients, for example, those at a high risk for diabetes, a stronger case can be made for removal of the prepuce because the risk of penile infection is greater than in nondiabetic men. Whether routine neonatal surgery is indicated when there is only a theoretic risk of diabetes is questionable.

Neonatal Urinary Tract Infection

A possible benefit to circumcision is a reduction in the incidence of neonatal UTI.^49,62 A series of studies of varying quality and design suggest a 10 fold reduction (1.12% vs 0.11%) in UTI incidence in circumcised versus uncircumcised young boys. Although the available data may be fairly read to support the existence of this effect, the clinical importance of this observation and the strength of this argument as a basis for routine circumcision remains, predictably, controversial.

A possible beneficial effect of circumcision on the incidence of UTIs was observed by Ginsberg and McCracken in 1982.⁶⁰ They reported that 85% of a series of 100 male infants less than 8 months of age with UTIs were not circumcised. They went on to speculate concerning the possible association between a child's foreskin status and UTI risk.

Following this report, Wiswell and associates^49,53,54 and others^52,56,58 made similar observations in a series of both prospective and retrospective studies of varying quality. Spach and colleagues⁶¹ published additional data concerning UTI incidence in sexually active young men, again suggesting a relationship between foreskin status and the incidence of UTIs.

As an example of this literature, Wiswell and Smith⁴⁹ in an 18-month study reviewed the medical records of 5261 infants delivered in a military medical center. In this group, 1919 of 2502 (77%) male neonates had been circumcised within 24 hours of birth with the use of the Plastibell device. Four hundred neonates were subsequently evaluated for possible UTIs during their first year of life. None of the male infants in the study had phimosis or balanitis. Of this group, 4 1 were diagnosed as having UTI, as confirmed by urine culture. Lethargy, irritability, poor feeding, fever, vomiting, and diarrhea were used as clinical indicators of infection risk. Infants with known urogenital anomalies that could predispose them to UTI were excluded. The overall incidence of UTI among male infants during the first year of life was significantly greater than the incidence among female infants (p < 0.01). The incidence of UTI among uncircumcised male infants (24 in 585 = 4.12%) was significantly greater statistically than the incidence among circumcised male infants (4 in 1919 = 0.21%; p < 0.05). Female infants and circumcised male infants had a statistically equivalent incidence of UTI (0.47% and 0.21%, respectively).

In theory, exposing the urinary meatus through circumcision reduces bacterial contamination of the glans and prepuce, and thus the possibility of secondary ascending infection.^45,62,64 UTI in male neonates results largely from bowel bacteria (predominantly Proteus mirabilis, fimbriated Escherichia coli), which colonize the prepuce.⁶⁴ In a small number of cases and under the correct circumstances, ascending infection of the urinary tract follows. Apparently the P. fimbriated strains of E. Coli—responsible for more than 90% of infant pyelonephritis infections—bind to the prepuce.^64,65 In microbiology, fimbriae are defined as microscopic hair-like projections arising from bacteria. These fimbriae adhere to the mucosa of the urogenital tract by nonspecific hydrophobic or electrostatic binding or by specific binding to glycoproteins or glycolipid receptors. There are potentially important consequences of neonatal infection. Renal injury due to UTI is believed to occur predominantly during the first years of life.⁵ Children afflicted with pyelonephritis have the potential to develop serious renal complications, including hypertension (10%) and end-stage renal sease (2% to 3%).

How are these data to be interpreted? The incidence of UTI in male neonales is low; however, such infections can be difficult to diagnose and, as noted above, occasionally result in permanent renal damage.⁶⁰ Although the positive effect of circumcision in reducing the frequency of UTI in male neonates is generally accepted (see, however, the critique by Thompson⁶⁵), a debate remains concerning the implications of these data as used to support a program of routine neonatal circumcision. On a population basis, this circumcision benefit is small—due largely to the low incidence of UTI among young males. Some reviewers are unwilling to accept these data in the absence of a prospective, controlled study.³⁸ A question is whether this benefit is sufficient to outweigh the risks of the original surgical procedure. Chessare⁶⁶ discussed several of these points in an attempt to develop a decision model to evaluate routine circumcision. Most would probably concur that the case for circumcision as a prophylaxis against UTIs is best made for infants with anatomic abnormalities of the urinary tract because they are at an increased risk of ascending infection.^55,67

Penile Carcinoma

Penile carcinoma occurs primarily in men with poor genital hygiene who are more than 50 years old. The greatest incidence is seen in underdeveloped countries.^65,69 This disease is responsible for approximately 0.3% to 0.5% of malignancies among men, with an incidence of 0.5 to 1.4 per 100,000 men.⁷⁰ In the United States, 750 to 1000 cases are reported yearly. Although other factors are also important, an element of chronic irritation or infection is commonly associated with penile cancer.^44,70,78 Clinical findings usually include phimosis with or without balanitis.⁶⁹ The incidence of phimosis among patients with cancer of the penis varies in reported cases from 40% to 70%.^70,71,79 The tumor occurs largely—but not invariably—in uncircumcised men.^{3,5,8,72,74,75,77,78,80,83}

Penile tumors are normally squamous cell cancers.⁶⁸ These tumors spread primarily via lymphatic drainage and by local invasion. The disorder is usually treated with partial or complete penectomy, with or without groin dissection. Radiation therapy also is administered occasionally. These tumors prove fatal in approximately one third of patients, usually owing to the advanced stage common at the time of diagnosis.⁷⁸

The relationship of penile cancer to circumcision is interesting. There have been uncommon cases of carcinoma of the shaft or glans penis in patients who had undergone circumcision in childhood or later in life, and rare cases of cancer in those who were circumcised as neonates.^{78,79,80,81,84} In men circumcised at birth, fewer than 10 cases of penile cancer have been reported in world literature.⁷⁹ In the total of 1624 patients with penile cancer in the combined series of Wolbarst,⁸⁵ Dagher and coworkers,⁷⁷ Hardner and associates,⁷⁶ and Riveros and Gorostiaga,⁸⁶ none had been circumcised in infancy.

As an example of a series of penile cancer patients who had been circumcised previously outside the neonatal period; Bissada and colleagues⁸⁴ described 15 cases of squamous cell cancer among patients who were circumcised in their mid teens. These patients had neoplastic lesions located on the dorsum of the shaft, apparently arising from the site of prior circumcision scars. The majority of these men were from an isolated area of Saudi Arabia (13 of 15) and had undergone “aggressive circumcision” by local practitioners—a technique apparently no longer practiced. The authors speculated that extensive scarring at the operative site was an inciting factor in tumorigenesis. In addition, the unusual nature of these tumors and the strict localization—both to anatomic site and country of origin—imply the influence of unique hereditary and environmental factors.

Not all etiologic factors of penile carcinoma are established. Differences in incidence among different populations have been observed. Several behavioral factors (e.g., smoking) and a variety of medical conditions (e.g., poor hygiene, chronic phimosis, human papillomavirus [HPV] infection) are associated with penile cancer.⁵² Clinical observation over many years and the data on the apparent protective effect of circumcision suggest that chronic irritation or infection, which frequently accompany phimosis with balanitis are major factors predisposing persons to tumor development, The unsettled question is the mechanism. Here, certain observations are pertinent. An important irritant factor in tumorigenesis may be smegma, the potentially carcinogenic secretion that collects under the foreskin in the uncircumcised male population. However, if the smegma hypothesis is true, it is puzzling why neonatal circumcision is largely protective against cancer, whereas circumcision later in life is not. Smegma usually is not identified until near puberty.

Other cofactors are important in the pathogenesis of penile cancer, including a history of HPV infection (genital warts), smoking, multiple sexual partners, and a history of prior penile rash or chronic dermatitis.^69,72,87 Another possible association is low socioeconomic status.^70,82 In theory, certain of these risk factors may act in synergy in tumorigenesis. The viral theory of tumor initiation is of particular interest. Penile cancer shares certain common risk factors with female genital cancers.⁸² It is theorized that human genital cancers may arise from deficient cellular control of HPV gene expression—a process perhaps assisted by exposure to chemical carcinogens in tobacco smoke.⁸⁸ Whether or not the HPV hypothesis proves correct as a risk factor for penile cancer, the available data do support the identification of certain additional risk factors such as smoking. The observed protective effort of foreskin removal on the incidence of penile cancer must be multifactorial. This is suggested by the data reported by Bissada and colleagues⁵⁴ and by a study of the varying incidence among different human populations.

It has been suggested that the incidence of penile cancer is so low that the loss of life as a complication of circumcision exceeds that from the development of malignant penile tumors.⁸⁹ This claim, however, cannot withstand critical review. The recorded yearly deaths from penile cancer in the United States exceed 200, but in a 25-year review of a number of studies there have been only two documented cases of death as a complication of neonatal circumcision.

It is incontestable that penile cancer is a serious disease with substantial yearly mortality; however, it is a rara avis. A critical evaluation of the possible benefit of circumcision in preventing penile carcinoma requires a review of lifetime risks for penile cancer in an identified population (uncircumcised males, from birth to 85 years of age or older), rather than yearly incidence statistics. As an example of this type of analysis, Kochen and McCurdy⁷³ estimated the cumulative lifetime risk for penile carcinoma based on Third National Cancer Survey incidence data (1971) as 1 in 600, with a median age of occurrence of 67 years. Based on these data, and assuming circumcision prevents most but not all penile carcinomas, a minimum of 600 to 1000 neonatal procedures would have to be performed to avoid a single case of penile cancer and threefold as many to avoid a single cancer death.^77,90 The reported lifetime risk for Danish men is 1 in 909.⁹⁰ Some caution is necessary in reviewing data on incidence of genital tumors. As Persky⁷⁰ pointed out, there is some degree of uncertainty in the international comparative statistics for penile cancer. On this basis, critics have charged that some incidence figures quoted are far too high and based on inaccurate statistics? Nonetheless, while conceding that penlie cancer is an uncommon condition and that some problems exist with international comparative data, the available information may be fairly read to indicate substantial differences in incidence due to a number of factors including, but not limited to, circumcision.

How are these data to be interpreted? Analysis of the best available evidence suggests that Cancer of the penis is strongly associated with chronic irritation and infection as well as other risk factors, and that it occurs largely, but not invariably, in the uncircumcised population. Most, but not all reviewers concur that complete neonatal circumcision virtually excludes the risk for penile carcinoma.^5,24,72,78 Presumably circumcision reduces the incidence of inflammation, and perhaps alters other unrecognized cofactors. It has been claimed, but not proved, that high personal standards for genital hygiene alone provides similar protection against cancer.^9,91 Whether these data concerning the effects of circumcision on the incidence of penile cancer strengthen or weaken the case for neonatal circumcision depends on how this information is weighed in terms of benefits versus risks.

Circumcision and Cervical Cancer

Data concerning the relationship, if any, between cervical cancer and circumcision are confusing and contradictory.^{5,72,92,93,94,95,96,97} Important known etiologic factors in cervical cancer include age at first intercourse, number of partners, frequency of intercourse, and HPV exposure. In theory, because foreskin status could affect viral carriage and the incidence of chronic penile infection, it might be a factor in female genital cancer. The problem is in identifying and then assessing the anatomy and penile hygiene of all of a woman's sexual partners over a prolonged period.^98,101 Any study connecting foreskin status and female genital cancer is unreliable unless the anatomy of the male partner is determined by actual examination. Variations in foreskin length exist in those never subjected to circumcision. Surprisingly, many men are uncertain whether they have ever undergone the operation. Also, some men who have undergone circumcision have foreskins partially covering the glans and thus are effectively uncircumcised.^92,102 Perhaps not surprisingly, there are no standards for the evaluation of the extent of male circumcision. No reasonable conclusions can be reached from a review of these data except to state that an association between foreskin status and cervical carcinoma is unproved and, given the nature of the problem, perhaps unprovable.^92,94,96,97

Sexually Transmitted Diseases

The association between foreskin status and the transmission Of STDs (e.g., HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, herpes, chlamydia, HPV) remains complex and indeterminate.^{3,10,100,101,103,104,105,106} Anecdotal reports from military experience, and several studies from STD or military clinics suggest that the uncircumcised population has a higher incidence of STDS.^3,99,105,106 Other studies have noted no protective effects of circumcision and, in fact, a higher frequency of some disorders (e.g., genital warts, nongonococcal urethritis, and genital herpetic lesions) among the circumcised population.^106,107 Differences in marital status, sexual practices, level of education, use of condoms, frequency of exposure to STDs, and foreskin status strongly influence these data, and the available studies differ in how well such variables are accounted for in their statistical analyses.

How might a difference in foreskin status influence the risk of STDs? Smith¹⁰⁵ speculates that the prepuce may actually be protective against nongonococcal urethritis by providing both a physical and immunologic barrier to infection. Alternatively, it is argued that the circumcised population has a less favorable environment for the entrapment of irritative or infective particles under the foreskin and are thus at a reduced risk. In theory, repeated microtrauma to the intact foreskin during coitus might result in lesions that increase the risk of infectivity if the appropriate agent is present. Finally, preexisting balanitis in the uncircumcised population could injure tissue under the foreskin, thus predisposing these men to secondary infection.¹⁰⁵ Other data strengthen the possible association between STDs and foreskin status. For example, although the carriage rate for Candida is apparently equal between the circumcised and uncircumcised populations, symptomatic infection is more common among those with a foreskin. It appears that a cost of being uncircumcised is a higher frequency of irritative and inflammatory disorders of the glans penis. It cannot be proved convincingly that circumcision provides protection against either syphilis or gonorrhea: however, recent data suggest that HIV infection may be more common in uncircumcised men.^103,104

In summary, it remains unclear whether circumcision offers an effective protection against a variety of STDs. Although a substantial body of data suggest that it does, additional information is needed to reach firm conclusions.

Social Factors

Circumcision decisions are governed more by social norms, the foreskin status of the father, and cultural expectations than by pronouncements by health professionals, “foreskin crusaders,” or learned bodies.^{106,107,108,109,110} Herrara and associates^110,111 remarked on the social valuation of circumcision and counted it an important factor in influencing the decision to have the procedure performed. The desire of the family for a male child to be “like father” is often an important factor in influencing the parents to decide on circumcision. Critics suggest other. less laudatory motivations for circumcision.^9,112,113 including ignorance and financial incentives to the practitioner.

Circumcision is commonly performed with the use of either specially designed clamps or disposable plastic stents. Instruments commonly employed include the Gomco (Yellen)¹¹⁴ and Mogen clamps and the Plastibell. All of these devices are designed to isolate the foreskin from underlying structures, protecting the glans from injury. These devices are used most frequently, but many other specialized instruments for circumcision have been described.⁵

In this section, circumcision with the Gomco clamp is discussed in detail. Much of the illustrated technique is the same, regardless of the type of clamp or stent chosen. As with other operative procedures, surgeons should master one technique fully, develop familiarity with an alternative approach for unusual circumstances and be prepared to manage complications. Regardless of the surgical method chosen, the requirements for initial parental counseling and consent, the appropriate choice of cases, meticulous aseptic technique, and adequate analgesia remain the same.

Pain Perception and Anesthetic Technique

There is good evidence that neonates perceive pain. Neonates respond to the stress of unanesthetized circumcision by increased cortisol levels^115,116,117 and various changes in biophysical behavior.^{118,119,120,121,122} Not surprisingly, neonates who receive adequate anesthesia or analgesia while undergoing circumcision cry less, are less agitated and have less perturbation in other biophysical parameters than those without.^115,123,126 How best to achieve safe and adequate pain relief is the issue.

A brief review of the anatomy of the nerves to the penis is helpful in understanding modern techniques for blocking the perception of pain. Anatomically, the nerves serving the penis include the pudendal (S2-S4) nerve and the pelvic anatomic plexus. The principal nerve supply to the prepuce is provided by the dorsal branches of the pudendal nerve. At the penile root, the dorsal nerves, arteries, and veins are located anteriorly at the 2- and 10-o'clock positions, and lie 3 to 5 mm beneath the skin (Fig. 1). Ramifications of the nerve begin approximately 1 cm beyond the penile root. Thus, to be successful, a nerve block needs to be given anteriorly at the penile base, with particular attention to the avoidance of vascular injury. It also is possible to inject an anesthetic for a purely local block, as opposed to a nerve block¹²⁷ or to apply a local anesthetic as a cream or gel.^128,129 The latter technique is discussed in greater detail below.

The routine use of an anesthetic for circumcision is strongly encouraged because substantial data now exists documenting safety. The literature includes descriptions of a number of simple techniques employing either local, injectable anesthetics or anesthetic creams or ointments. Several recommendations are discussed below.

For several years we have employed a penile block technique using 0.5 mL or less of 1% or 0.5% lidocaine without epinephrine administered via a tuberculin syringe fitted with a fine-gauge needle (26 to 27 gauge). We usually dilute the standard 1% lidocaine solution with an equal volume of sterile saline and mix by tilting the syringe. The skin around the base of the penile shaft is then cleansed, and a bleb of 0.2 to 0.4 mL of the 0.5% (or 1%. if preferred/lidocaine solution is injected subcutaneously at the 10- and 2-o'clock positions on both sides of the dorsal shaft^{123,126,130,131} (see Fig. 1). These injections usually result in a dense local block in 80% to 90% of cases; however, it is important to wait for 3 to 5 minutes after the drug is administered until the block is fully developed. As a practical matter, we usually prepare the lidocaine solution and make the injections as the first part of the procedure. Then we prep the operative field, open the surgical kit, and arrange the instruments. Because these preliminaries consume several rainutes, the anesthesia block usually is established by the time the surgeon is prepared to proceed with the operation.

Although injected local anesthetic has been used successfully for nerve block in a large number of cases with minimal evidence of complications, some cautions are in order.^{115,120,121,122,123,124,126,131,132} The operator must be certain not to inject the drug into either the dorsal vein or artery because this could lead to adverse systemic reactions. Epinephrine containing solutions should never be used because of the possible risk of inducing acute penile ischemia.¹³² Only lidocaine should be used for injection, and the total volume should not exceed 1 mL of the 1% solution. Substantial data suggest that this dose is safe. Fontaine and co-workers¹²⁴ have reported on 1022 cases of lidocaine dorsal nerve block. In this series, no instances of lidocaine toxicity, vascular compression, or voiding delays were observed. The complication rate was 1.2%. The problems consisted of 11 instances of minor, local ecchymoses at the injection site, with 1 case involving more significant bleeding. All of these proved to be of trivial clinical consequence.

Published experience with drugs other than lidocaine for neonatal circumcision is minimal.¹²³ Hematomas and gangrene of the skin at the glands have been reported when bupivacalne was used for a dorsal penile block.¹³⁴ These cases involved older children (13 months and 3 years) undergoing circumcision with general anesthesia. The children subsequently received dorsal local anesthesia blocks for postoperative analgesia. In these cases, it is unclear whether it was the agent used, the technique of administration (i.e., vessel compression by use of excessive volume), or the surgical events that were responsible for the observed complications.¹³⁴ Local injection of another local anesthetic, prilocalne, has been associated with methemoglobinemia.^135,136 The use of this drug as an injectable anesthetic should be avoided.

Topical anesthetics using either 30% lidocaine cream¹²⁶ or a eutectic mixture (i.e., with a melting point less than room temperature) of 2.5% prilocaine and 2.5% lidocalne prepared as an emulsion (EMLA Cream)¹³⁷ also have been reported to be effective for circumcision.¹²⁹ In this technique, approximately 0,1 mL EMLA cream is applied directly to the prepuce with a swab. The area treated is then covered with a lightly occlusive gauze dressing and left for 45 to 60 minutes before the procedure is attempted?⁹ As noted above, local injections of prilocaine should not be performed because of the risk of methemoglobinemia. It is unclear whether sufficient absorption of EMLA cream might present the same risk in certain patients. So far, such complications have not been reported with the cream, but caution in the use of this preparation is necessary until larger series are reported. This topical technique has yet to be compared directly in adequate patient numbers for both efficacy and safety (specifically systemic absorption of drug) with the technique of lidocaine dorsal nerve blockade (described above). Nonetheless, the initial results are encouraging, and some of these methods may find a place in standard practice.^129,138

There are other possible alternatives to the use of an injectable or topical anesthetic. Blass and Hoffmeyer¹³⁹ described the use of a sucrose-flavored pacifier during circumcision. This technique appears to have some efficacy—at least as reflected in the observation of reduced neonatal crying during the procedure. Whether the positive effect observed was due to the sucrose acting by opioid mediation or to the benefits of nonnutritive sucking is less clear.¹²⁷ Oral acetaminophen (10 to 15 mg/kg orally or 15 to 20 mg/kg rectally) also can be used to reduce postoperative pain. This compound has the advantage of proven efficacy and safety for treatment of noncircumcision-related pain.¹⁴⁰ The one available placebo-controlled study of acetaminophen conducted in neonales undergoing circumcision, however, indicates that the drug is ineffective for operative and immediate postoperative discomfort, whereas it does retain some efficacy in controlling the discomfort that occurs several hours after surgery.¹⁴³

There are several simple precautions to follow if an injectable local anesthetic is used. Only non-epinephrine-containing solutions are used. The needle must neither enter the dorsal vein of the penis nor penetrate into the shaft itself. When the needle is inserted into the correct subcutaneous plane lateral to the penile shaft, the tip is easily movable, and little, if any, resistance to injection is noted when the plunger of the syringe is depressed. The needle tip should not be advanced beyond 0.5 cm below the skin surface. Care must also be taken to inject only small volumes of fluid, avoiding vessel injury by direct compression. The vessels at the site of injection are in a restricted compartment, and interference with penile circulation, though rare, is a possible complication if too large a volume is vigorously injected.³⁴

Preoperative Management of the Neonate

Once an anesthetic has been chosen and administered, several other steps should be taken. Traditionally, to reduce the possibility of vomiting or aspiration, the child is denied oral intake for at least 1 hour preceding the operation. This is a reasonable precaution that we generally follow, but for which no reliable data exist. Not all experienced clinicians, however, follow this practice. Holding a neonate NPO for an excessive period of time may well be unnecessary, and hunger can contribute to the child's overall distress.²¹ The easiest way to proceed is to simply perform the operation prior to the next feeding.

Positioning of the infant for the procedure is important. Some of the discomfort the infant experiences during circumcision is due to restriction of his or her movement and exposure to cold. When available, we prefer to use a plastic circumcision board fitted with Velcro restraints. Only the legs are restrained, not the upper extremities. Arm movement does not interfere with the procedure; rather, infants appear to be less distressed when their arms are free. The circumcision board is positioned under a radiant heat source if available, to maintain warmth. If the restraint board is either not available or not desired, an assistant may simply hold the infant in a supine, frog-legged position for the operation. We favor having an assistant present during the procedure. The assistant provides either a finger or a pacifier to help soothe and reassure the infant during the operation and obtains additional equipment or dressings for the surgeon, if required.

Surgical Technique

An important responsibility of the surgeon is to check the surgical instruments before beginning the procedure. The Gomco clamp includes a number of parts (bell, base, top plate with yoke, nut), and the operator should be confident that all are present and working correctly. Several technical problems may be encountered with the clamp, requiring the surgeon to request a new instrument before the surgery is attempted. The bell may become nicked or grooved by heavy use, the base plate may warp with age, the screw threads may not work easily, or the clamp may have been assembled with an incorrect bell size for the clamp base. Any of these reasons should prompt the surgeon to reject the clamp and request a replacement.

After correct positioning of the child is ensured, the genitalia are cleansed with a povidone-iodine solution. After the anesthetic is administered and the instruments are checked, the surgeon proceeds with the operation. The operative field is draped. We favor a small triangular drape with a circular hole for the phallus. The extreme edges of the foreskin are first grasped with mosquito clamps, carefully avoiding trauma to the glands. Next, the plane between the glands and foreskin is developed by gentle dissection using a blunt probe or hemostat tip (Fig. 2). A dorsal slit is then performed. Using a straight mosquito-type hemostat, the anterior foreskin is crushed longitudinally in the midline. The clamp is removed, and the compressed area is divided with scissors. Because the clamp crushes the tissue, this is usually a bloodless incision (Fig. 3). In making the dorsal slit, close attention is paid to the posterior blade of the scissors to avoid damage to the meatus, which can result in a hypospadias or epispadias or possibly predispose the infant to subsequent fistula formation.²¹ Care is necessary in applying this initial clamp for another reason: The indentation made by the mosquito clamp for the dorsal slit serves as the marker for the length of skin to be excised from the shaft. The foreskin is quite flaccid and it is easy to mobilize excessive tissue, leading to an overestimate of the extent of skin to be drawn up in the Gomco clamp and removed. Excision of too much tissue results in inadvertent denuding of the shaft, which can necessitate secondary suturing. Kaplan⁶ described an alternative technique to judge the length of skin to be removed: The location of the coronal sulcus is first marked on the skin of the penis with a pen before beginning the operation.

Once the dorsal slit is performed, the skin edges are grasped with fine-bladed clamps. The Gomco clamp bell is next inserted under the incised prepuce, entering the potential space between the glands and foreskin (Fig. 4). Usually some twisting and maneuvering is necessary to set the bell correctly. If the usually available bell size (1.3 cm) is too large, the smaller (1.1 cm) size clamp is substituted. The correct bell size for the overwhelming majority of neonates is 1.3 cm. The 1.1 cm bell is uncommonly needed; the 1.6-era clamp size is also available, but is virtually never required for neonatal procedures.

When correctly applied, the rim of the Gomco Bell lies below the apex of the original dorsal slit, slightly distending the prepuce. Once the bell is in place, the clamp is assembled. The foreskin is carefully drawn up between the bell and body of the clamp using the mosquito hemostats. Once the Gomco is fully assembled and before compression is applied, the operator checks to be certain that the full length of foreskin marked by the original dorsal slit is drawn into the clamp and that the application is symmetric. If the apex of the original dorsal slit is not included in the skin removed, an unsightly cleft and a site for potential bleeding results. Once the surgeon is satisfied, and after assuring that the foot of the clamp is correctly inserted into the base plate, the finger nut of the clamp is firmly screwed in place. This crushes the foreskin between the bell and body of the clamp. The isolated, avascularized foreskin is then excised with a scalpel (Fig. 5). Electrocautery should never be used for this purpose because of the possibility of extensive injury to the penis. The clamp is left in place for several minutes to ensure hemostasis. Operators vary greatly in recommending how long the clamp should be allowed to remain.²⁰ Yellen recommended waiting for 5 minutes¹¹⁴; however, many surgeons remove the clamp immediately after completing the procedure.

After the clamp is disassembled and the bell teased off, the glands and shaft are observed carefully. Slight oozing is common. Persistent oozing from the glans is a common, minor complication due to the disruption of small vascular connections between the glans and the prepuce. Gentle pressure with a saline-moistened sponge for 2 to 5 minutes usually controls the ooze. Direct suturing of the glands is counterproductive and not recommended. Bleeding from the foreskin edge that is not responsive to simple pressure is best controlled by silver nitrate sticks, oxidized cellulose piedgets, or thrombin applications combined with gentle pressure. If bleeding still persists, which is uncommon, the placement of several small sutures of 5–0 or 6–0 chromic or polyglycolic acid may be necessary. Suturing also is indicated if the skin edge has drawn away from the corona, revealing a raw or denuded area on the penile shaft. For many years bleeding that was unresponsive to simple pressure was treated with topical applications of epinephrine (solutions of 1: 10,000 or less), applied to the gauze sponges used for compression. Recently, a controversy has developed about the routine use of such epinephrine-soaked sponges to control bleeding. An uncommon complication of this procedure is absorption, and systemic symptoms or evidence of local ischemia have been observed.^142,145 Such untoward reactions from local epinephrine applications are rare; however, we believe that simple, direct pressure and selective suturing remain the best treatments for postcircumcision bleeding, and conclude that epinephrine solutions should be used sparingly, if at all (see section on Complications of Circumcision, below).

Once hemostasis is adequate, a nonocclusive gauze dressing impregnated with petroleum jelly is simply wound loosely around the penile shaft and glands to prevent adherence of the operative field to the diaper (Fig. 6). A constrictive dressing has the potential to obstruct either normal urination or penile blood flow.^21,146 The child is then comforted, rediapered, and returned to the mother for holding or feeding. Normally, we intermittently observe the operative site for 1 hour to be certain that hemostasis is adequate.

Providing the family with a prepared form Outlining care of the penis during the healing phase is good practice.²¹ The parents are encouraged to call if questions or problems occur within the next 24 to 48 hours. Circumcisions normally heal within several days. No specific care is required other than simply light washing. The best practice is to leave the original dressing on until it falls off. For several days, petroleum jelly or A and D ointment is applied lightly to the glands every time the diaper is changed. Parents should be instructed that adherent serum or clot are not to be vigorously removed from the penis, but should simply be allowed to spontaneously dissolve. Petroleum jelly or A and D ointment from unit dose foil packets is applied to the glans as a dressing during the healing phase.

Circumcision also can be performed without the use of a crushing clamp. The Plastibell stent can be employed, or a “freehand” technique similar to that illustrated by Howat can be used.³⁹ The latter technique is sometimes necessary if the circumcision is performed on a small child. In occasional cases where the infant's genitals are small, even the 1.1-cm Gomco clamp may prove simply too large. The best technique in such cases is to advance the foreskin beyond the glands and to crossclamp it, with special attention paid to avoiding injury to the unprotected glans. The redundant skin is then excised, and the operative site is examined for bleeding.

In experienced hands, the immediate risks of circumcision are low but not completely negligible.^{5,6,19,147,149} The incidence of any complication related to circumcision is reported to vary from 0.1% to 55%.^{5,42,150,151,152,153,154} The reasons for this remarkably wide variance include different methods of study, varying clinical definitions for certain complications (e.g., bleeding; see below), and type of follow-up performed. Most reported complications of circumcision are minor.^45,149 In the frequently quoted studies of Wiswell and Hachey,^54,136,86 cases performed in military hospitals were studied retrospectively, and an early complication rate of 0.19% was reported. The most frequent problems in this and most other series include bleeding, surgical trauma, and superficial infection. One should note that the incidence of complications found in such hospital population studies is reduced by the fact that the study design did not accurately identify late-developing problems. Follow-up series involving large numbers of infants to judge both short- and long-term complications are not available.

Because different series define bleeding complications of circumcision in various ways, the reported incidence varies from 0.1% to 35%.^6,42 Serious blood loss is an uncommon problem. Shulman and colleagues¹⁵² reported bleeding as a cause for hospitalization in only 1 in 800 cases. In our experience, hemorrhage is virtually never a serious issue unless the child has a clotting deficiency, or a skin separation from the glands has occurred. A family history of a bleeding disorder is a contraindication to the performance of elective circumcision. In this setting, no procedure should be considered until it is certain that the child has normal coagulation studies. As discussed above in the Surgical Technique section, the treatment for the vast majority of cases complicated by slight oozing is gentle, direct pressure with a saline-moistened sponge. More significant bleeding may require suturing or more prolonged compression with or without the use of silver nitrate sticks, coagulation-promoting agents, or vasoconstriction agents. The use of epinephrine-soaked piedgets to control postoperative ooze is best abandoned. If epinephrine is used, only dilute solutions should be applied for brief periods, and the child must be observed closely for local and systemic effects. As mentioned above, dressings encircling the shaft should be applied loosely; tight wrapping can cause obstruction either of vascular return from the glands or, potentially, of normal micturition.

Occasional wound infection is an inevitable consequence of circumcision, as it is with any surgical procedure.^6,150 The frequency of circumcision-related infection is not precisely known. Again, a great deal depends both on the definition used to establish this diagnosis and on operative technique. In a large series of cases, Gee and Ansell¹⁵⁰ reported an incidence of clinical infection in 23 of 5521 cases (0.42%). Of these 23 infections, 19 (83%) were related to the Plastibell circumcision device; the remaining 4 were associated with Gomcoclamp procedures. Of the 19 (21%) neonates with Plastibell-related infections, 4 had fever or irritability and 1 had positive blood cultures. Patel¹⁵³ observed that 8% of the circumcisions performed in his series were “infected,” without defining the means of diagnosis. One infection was labeled “severe,” and antibiotics were administered; the remainder presumably responded to local measures. Rarely, unusually severe or life-threatening infections occur after circumcision. These include necrotizing fasciitis,¹⁵⁵ Fournier's syndrome,¹⁵⁶ septicemia and meningitis,^158,159,160

Another possible surgical complication of circumcision is an inadequate operation.⁶ This includes a number of surgical misadventures, including either failure to remove enough skin or, more commonly, partial denuding of the shaft by excessive skin excision. If too much skin is removed, the remaining skin can retract, revealing a gap between the severed skin edge and the glands. In the most extreme cases, the shaft is virtually entirely denuded as well as a variable amount of the preputial epithelium, resulting in a pseudomicrophallus: the result is a concealed or “toad-in-the-hole” pems after healing.^6,39,61,163 This complication is generally easily managed initially, as long as there is no injury to the glands and the shaft is not entirely denuded. Bleeding sites from the edges are clamped and, if necessary, sutured. If the escaped skin edge can be sutured to the sulcus without marked distortion of the shaft, this is performed. If this is not possible or if for other reasons an adequate primary repair cannot be achieved either skin grafting is performed or the area is simply kept clean and allowed to granulate in.¹⁶² Occasionally, if too little skin is removed secondary phimosis results from formation of a circular cicatrix at the incised prepuce edge; recircumcision is required.

Bridging of the skin of the shaft to the glands can also occur.^6,164 Such adhesions can make erection painful and can result in skin tunnels where smegma accumulates and irritation or localized infection develops. It is unclear whether these adhesions result from incomplete separation of the glands from the prepuce during initial circumcision or develop secondarily as a restfit of injury of the glands with subsequent adherence of the penile skin during healing. If these lesions are symptomatic the treatment is simple excision.

Offsetting the apparent benefits from circumcision in reducing the risk of inflammation of the glands or foreskin is the occasional complication of inflammation of the urinary meatus. This is presumably due to exposure of the glands to ammonia splitting organisms in the neonate's diapers. It has been claimed that the incidence of mental inflammation in circumcised neonales varies from 5% to 30%. Meatitis may rarely result in symptomatic mental stenosis. The incidence of this disorder is impossible to estimate accurately, but it is clearly uncommon. Symptomatic meatal stenosis normally responds to passive dilation, and surgical revision is uncommonly required.^165,166

Long-term morbidity figures for circumcision are difficult to obtain because of the extremely varied means of reporting and study. Similarly, data on psychologic complications extending into later life are largely anecdotal and hard to interpret. It must be stated that there are a substantial number of individuals who believe that circumcision has had an adverse effect on their lives.^4,9,112,113 Although the fervor of these beliefs cannot be denied, objective data is at best extremely limited. There are only anecdotal data and opinion (strong opinion usually) on the long-term effects of circumcision on male sexual function.^{11,47,167,168,169} It has been variously claimed that circumcision aids or hinders sexual performance and that the presence of foreskin is a barrier or asset to vaginal penetration.^6,169,170 Perhaps not surprisingly, the lack of data has been no hindrance to speculation in the literature concerning this issue.

Other complications of circumcision are quite uncommon. These include meatal ulceration or stenosis: formation of fistulas between the urethra and the glands; various penile injuries, including injuries or amputation of the glands or shaft; serious infection^6,171; and bizarre complications, such as gastric rupture¹⁷² or keloid formation at the operative site.¹⁷³ Obstructive uropathy from an occlusive dressing applied after circumcision also has been reported, as has dislocation of Piastibeli rings, resulting in injury to the skin of the penile shaft.^6,174,176 Auerbach and Scanlon¹⁷⁷ reported a recurrent pneumothorax in a neonate circumcised at day 5 who had a spontaneous pneumothorax at birth. Presumably, infant distress and crying led to recurrence. Inclusion cysts, penile lymphadenoma, and uterocutaneous fistulas also have been rarely reported.⁶ The ultimate complication for any surgical procedure is death. Neonatal circumcision has a mortality rate of approximately 1 to 2 per 1,000,000 procedures, owing largely to rare complications of serious infection or to general anesthesia. The latter is a problem for procedures performed outside the neonatal period.^{6,73,149,154,178}

Most of the serious complications of circumcision are related to operator inexperience, undue haste in performance of the procedure, rare idiosyncratic reactions to drugs, or uncommon infections.^5,6,151 Many, but not all of these problems are preventable. In large clinical centers, for reasons of convenience, circumcision often is assigned to the younger and frequently the most inexperienced members of the hospital staff. Thus, neophyte surgeons commit the classic errors in circumcision year after year. These procedures should be performed by those who are experienced, aware of potential problems, and prepared to handle complications? As noted, in experienced hands, the incidence of complications from circumcision while never zero is extremely low.

In considering the advisability of neonatal circumcision, several issues are pertinent. Does neonatal circumcision prevent or simply create problems? If there is a case to be made for neonatal circumcision, it must be made as a prophylactic measure. Neonates are remote from the period of life when STDs are an important issue or sexual performance is a major concern. Phimosis and inflammation are not a problem for uncircumcised neonates, and it is uncommon for foreskin problems to present substantial difficulties for the developing child. A related issue concerns the process whereby the parents make a life-long decision concerning the genital health and function of the child at a time when he is unable to participate in the decision. The issue hinges on whether it is appropriate to promote universal circumcision at a time of life when immediate indications are usually absent, or rather to perform circumcision only when it is indicated (e.g., a child at high risk for UTI) or as required later in life.

Correctly performed neonatal circumcision does obviate the need for subsequent circumcision in childhood or adulthood, yet there remain cases in which either recircumcision or revision of the original procedure is required. Between 2% and 10% of uncircumcised males will require some form of foreskin procedure during their lifetime, usually for an inflammatory disorder (e.g., balanoposthitis). Most reviewers would accept recurrent balanoposthitis as an indication for circumcision in young males. The incidence of this condition is reported to be approximately 4% in boys aged up to 14 years, but not all of these cases will be recurrent. The etiology is not always determined; a specific organism is identified in only approximately 30% of cases.

There are data that can help place some of these risks and presumed benefits into perspective.^3,44,45,179 Fergusson and co-workers¹⁷⁹ studied more than 500 New Zealand boys from birth to 8 years of age. The children were seen at birth, 4 months, and thereafter annually until 8 years of age as part of a larger study of child health and development that did not focus on the issue of circumcision. The results were interesting. During infancy, the incidence of penile problems in considered in the large categories of inflammation, phimosis, inadequate circumcision requiring revision, or postoperative infection after circumcision was higher among the circumcised boys. By ages 1 through 8 years, however, the incidence of these complications was higher among the uncircumcised boys. Most of these problems were described as “relatively minor,” and 64% were resolved after a single medical consultation.

Herzog and Alverezs retrospectively studied 545 children aged 4 months to 12 years. Of this group, 272 were uncircumcised and 273 had been circumcised at birth. Foreskin problems occurred in 14.3% of the uncircumcised subjects. Balanitis and irritation were the most common complaints. Complications were reported in 5.9% of the circumcised subjects. The authors reported that most complications were minor, although paraphimosis and symptomatic phimosis occurred in seven uncircumcised children of the 272 infants who were not circumcised at birth, 21 (8%) were circumcised subsequently: 5 for phimosis, 3 for balanitis, 1 for a chancre, and 1 for possible UTI: no medical indication was given for the remaining 11 procedures. In reviewing a similar population, Williams and Kapila⁴² reported phimosis (tight foreskin and balanitis as the most frequent childhood problems among uncircumcised boys. Similar findings were described by Fakjian and associates¹⁸⁰ in a series of uncircumcised adult males attending a Veterans Administration hospital dermatology clinic. In general, circumcision of adults usually is performed for the indications of phimosis or paraphimosis, intractable balanitis, and sexual dysfunction.¹⁵²

The best arguments to support neonatal circumcision are penile cleanliness avoidance of circumcision in adulthood, and prophylaxis against UTI.^48,54 As discussed above, uncircumcised prepubertal males do have a higher incidence of penile complications (largely irritation and infection) than do circumcised males: however, most such problems prove minor.⁴⁵ A reduction in the risk for penile carcinoma is also a likely benefit of circumcision: however, the incidence of cancer of the penis is low, and its etiology is believed to be multifactorial. It has been claimed but not proved that adequate genital hygiene among the uncircumcised population results in a risk of penile carcinoma equal to that in the circumcised population.⁷⁹

The eventual fate of routine neonate circumcision in the United States is unsettled. Social factors remain important in the decisions made by families. When most parents are asked why they favor circumcision, their answers include hygiene, convenience, vague statements of supposed medical advantage, and the father's foreskin status.^108,181 Lack of understanding about appropriate penile hygiene and physiology is widespread among both physicians and parents, contributing to the persisting popularity of circumion. Studies claiming to present a “balanced” view of circumcision suggest that counseling by health professionals has limited impact on the decision to circumcise.^110,113 The limited influence of “learned” advice in altering the frequency of circumcision is not surprising, considering that many parents do not perceive the opinions of health professionals as critical to their decision.¹⁰⁸

In the effort to review circumcision from the viewpoint of societal benefit or detriment, various types of cost-utility analyses have been conducted. Not surprisingly the results were varied depending on how the various components in the analyses were weighed.^66,182,183 These analyses generally do not provide support for a program of routine neonatal circumcision.

Given the extensive controversy, it is not surprising that the literature includes descriptions of various techniques to restore an appearance of uncircumcision to those who have concluded that their original operation was an error.¹⁸⁴ It should be noted that a desire to reverse circumcision for personal or social reasons is by no means a new phenomenon, Methods of reconstructing the prepuce date at least as far back as the 1st century AD, when Celsus, the Roman medical writer first described a practical technique.^184,185

The debate about circumcision will continue. Those who oppose it do so largely from a belief that the procedure is traumatic to the neonate, unnecessarily dangerous, and potentially detrimental to sexual function.^{4,5,9,13,31,167} The riposte is that when circumcision is performed by competent surgeons the complication rate, while never zero, is very low and most problems are minor.^5,44,48 There are data concerning UTI and penile inflammatory complications indicating a benefit, albeit modest, for circumcision.^44,54,186 The procedure is easily and safely performed under various forms of local anesthesia, reducing neonatal distress. These techniques should be known and used appropriately by all operators.^125,126 The issue of pain relief for the neonate requires close attention by all who perform these operations^187,188,189 despite extensive discussion in the literature. Many practitioners continue to perform circumcisions without the use of local anesthesia.^188,190,191 This practice should not continue. The issue of the routine use of anesthesia can be partially addressed with the institution of specialized retraining.^187,188,189

For clinicians who perform circumcisions, several important points should be pondered. It must be recalled that circumcision is an elective procedure. A case for its nonritual performance may not be convincing to all practitioners. The proponents of neonatal circumcision must accept that most surgical complications are avoidable and due to poor technical performance. This is especially true in medical centers where the least experienced practitioners often perform many of the procedures. Circumcision proponents must also recognize the weakness of some of the arguments made in the past to justify circumcision, particularly those of prophylaxis against female genital cancer and STDs. There are insufficient reliable data to substantiate such claims, however attractive the underlying hypotheses. In all instances, parents considering circumcision deserve careful and balanced counseling concerning the advantages and disadvantages of the procedure.^8,192–194 Preferably, this discussion should begin before labor and delivery. The neonate undergoing the operation has a right to expect a meticulous and near-painless performance of the procedure. Finally, it is well to emphasize that prospective surgeons must thoroughly know appropriate circumcision technique, including the use of local anesthesia in conducting rapid, atraumatic procedures.

1. Thompson HC: Editorial: The value of neonatal circumcision: An unanswered and perhaps unanswerable question. Am J Dis Child 137: 939, 1983

2. Grossman EA, Posner NA: Surgical circumcision of neonates: A history of its development. Obstet Gynecol 58: 1, 1977

3. Garvin CH, Persky L: Circumcision: ls it justified in infancy? J Nail Med Assoc 58: 233, 1966

4. Milos MF, Macris D: Circumcision: A medical or a human rights issue? J Nurse Midwifery 37: 87S, 1992

5. Grossman EA, Posner NA: The circumcision controversy: An update. Obstet Gynecol Annu 13: 181, 1984

6. Kaplan GW: Circumcision—an overview. Curr Probl Pediatr 7: 1, 1977

7. Gelbaum I: Circumcision: To educate, no indoctrinate—a mandate for certified nurse-midwives. J Nurse Midwifery 37: 97S, 1992

8. Robson WL, Leung AK: The circumcision question. Postgrad Med 91: 237, 1992

9. Wallerstein E: Circumcision: Ritual surgery or surgical ritual? Med Law 2: 85, 1983

10. Wiswell TE: Routine neonatal circumcision: A reappraisal. Am Fam Physician 41: 859, 1990

11. Lubchenco LO: Routine neonatal circumcision: A surgical anachronism. Clin Obstet Gynecol 23: 1135, 1980

12. Larsen GL, Williams SD: Postneonatal circumcision: Population profile. Pediatr 85: 808, 1990

13. Metcalf TJ, Osborn LM, Moriani EM: Circumcision: 2 year study of current practices. Clin Pediatr 22:575; 1983

14. Cohen Y: Circumcision: Myth, ritual, operation. Med J Malaysia 39: 210, 1984

15. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary, p 418. Oxford: Oxford University, 1986

16. Katz J: A question of circumcision. Int Surg 62: 490, 1977

17. Gairdner D: The fate of the foreskin: A study of circumcision. Br Med J 2: 1433, 1949

18. Waszak S J: The historical significance of circumcision. Obstet Gynecol 51: 499, 1978

19. Nasrallah PF: Circumcision: Pros and cons. Symposium on Genital Urinary Problems in Office Medicine. Prim Care 12: 593, 1985

20. Warnet E, Strashin E: Benefits and risks of circumcision. Can Med Assoc J 125: 967, 1981

21. Gelbaum I: Circumcision: Refining a traditional surgical technique. J Nurse Midwifery 38: 18S, 1993

22. Genesis 17: 10: Holy Bible. King James Version. Chicago, Spencer Press, 1947

23. Cutner LP: Female genital mutilation. Obstet Gynecol Surv 40: 437, 1985

24. Bolande RP: Ritualistic surgery—circumcision and tonsillectomy. N Engl J Med 290: 591, 1969

25. Lightfoot-Klein H, Shaw E: Special needs of ritually circumcised women patients. JOGNN 20: 102, 1991

26. Committee on Fetus and Newborn: Report of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Circumcision. Pediatrics 56:610, 1975

27. Task Force on Circumcision: Report of the Task Force on Circumcision. Pediatrics 84:388, 1989

28. Slaby AR, Drizd T: Circumcision in the United States. Am J Public Health 75i878, 1985

29. Carne S: Incidence of tonsillectomy, circumcision and appendectomy among R.A.F. recruits. Br Med J 2: 19, 1956

30. Calnan M, Douglas JWB, Goldstein H: Tonsillectomy and circumcision: Comparison of two cohorts. Int J Epidemiol 7: 79, 1978

31. Editorial: The case against neonatal circumcision. Br Med J 1:1163, 1979

32. Wirth JL: Current circumcision practices: Canada. Pediatrics 66: 705, 1980

33. Wirth JL: Statistics on circumcision in Canada and Australia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 130: 236, 1978

34. Shannon FT, Hotwood LJ, Fergusson DM: Infant circumcision. N Z Med J 2: 283, 1979

35. Ruff ML, Clarke TA, Harris JP et al: Myocardial injury following immediate postnatal circumcision. Am J Obstet Gynecol 144: 851, 1982

36. Oster J: Future fate of the foreskin: Incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis and smegma among Danish school boys. Arch Dis Child 43: 200, 1968

37. Wright JE: Further to “the further fate of the foreskin.” Med J Aust 160: 134, 1994

38. Medical indications for childhood circumcision. Drug Ther Bull 31:99, 1993

39. Howat JM: Circumcision. Nurs Times 72: 1434, 1976

40. Lan JKT, Chung RMC: An outpatient observation of the foreskin among Chinese children in Hong Kong. Singapore Med J 24: 93, 1982

41. Griffiths D, Frank JD: Inappropriate circumcision referrals by GPs. J Roy Soc Med 85: 324, 1992

42. Williams N, Kapila L: Complications of circumcision. Br J Surg 80: 1231, 1993

43. Osborn LM, Metcalf TJ, Mariani EM: Hygienic care in uncircumcised infants. Pediatrics 67: 365, 1981

44. Schoen EJ: Urologist and circumcision of newborns. Urology 40: 99, 1992

45. Herzog LW, Alverez SR: The frequency of foreskin problems in uncircumcised children. Am J Dis Child 140: 254, 1986

46. Fox GN: Care of uncircumcised children. West J Med 142: 270, 1985

47. St. John-Hunt D: Circumcision of the newborn: Is it good preventive medicine? Med J Aust 1: 1100, 1967

48. Schoen E J: The status of circumcision of newborns. N Engl J Med 322: 1308, 1990

49. Wiswell TE, Smith FR: Decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male infants. Pediatrics 75: 901, 1985

50. Wiswell TE: Letter: Circumcision and urinary tract infections in reply. Pediatrics 77: 267, 1986

51. Wiswell TE, Enzenauer RW, Holton ME et al: Declining frequency of circumcision: Implications for changes in the absolute incidence and male to female sex ratio urinary tract infections in early infancy. Pediatrics 79: 338, 1987

52. Herzog LW: Urinary tract infections and circumcision. Am J Dis Child 143: 348, 1989

53. Wiswell TE, Miller GM, Gelston HM et al: The effect of circumcision status on periurethral bacterial flora during the first year of life. J Pediatr 113: 422, 1988

54. Wiswell TE, Hachey WE: Urinary tract infections and the uncircumcised state: An update. Clin Pediatr 132: 130, 1993

55. Wiswell TE, Tencer HL, Welch CA et al: Circumcision in children beyond the neonatal period. Pediatrics 92: 791, 1993

56. Rushton HG, Maid M: Pyelonephritis in male infants: How important is the foreskin? J Urol 148: 733, 1992

57. Crain EF, Gershel JC: Urinary tract infections in febrile infants younger than 8 weeks of age. Pediatrics 86: 363, 1992

58. Kashani IA, Faraday R: The risk of urinary tract infection in uncircumcised male infants. Int Pediatr 4: 44, 1989

59. Nelson JW, McCracken GH: Circumcision and UTI. Pediatr Infect Dis J 10: 6, 1984

60. Ginsburg CM, McCracken GH: Urinary tract infections of young infants. Pediatrics 69: 409, 1982

61. Spach DH, Stapleton AE, Stamm WE: Lack of circumcision increases the risk of urinary tract infection in young men. JAMA 267: 679, 1992

62. Winberg J, Gothefors L, Bollgren et al: The prepuce: A mistake of nature? Lancet 1:598, 1989

63. Glennon J, Ryan PJ, Keane CT et al: Circumcision and periurethral carriage of Proteus mirabilis in boys. Arch Dis Child 63: 556, 1988

64. Fussell EN, Kaack B, Cherry R et al: Adherence of bacteria to human foreskin. J Urol 140: 997, 1988

65. Thompson RS: An opposing view: Possible relationship between lack of circumcision and symptomatic urinary tract infection. J Fam Pract 31: 189, 1990

66. Chessare JB: Circumcision: Is the risk of urinary tract infection really the pivotal issue? Clin Pediatr 100, 1992

67. Bollgren I, Winberg J: Letter: Is it time for Europe to reconsider newborn circumcision? Acta Pediatr Scand 80: 575, 1991

68. Persky L, de Kernion J: Carcinoma of the penis. CA 36: 258, 1986

69. Hellberg D, Valentin J, Eklund T et al: Penlie cancer. Is there an epidemiological role for smoking and sexual behaviour? Br Med J 295: 1306, 1987

70. Persky L: Epidemiology of cancer of the penis. Recent Results Cancer Res 60: 97, 1977

71. Hanash KA, Furiow WL, Utz TC et al: Carcinoma of the penis: A clinicopathologic study. J Urol 104: 291, 1970

72. Maden C, Sherman KJ, Beckman AM et al: History of circumcision, medical conditions, and sexual activity and risk of penile cancer. J Nail Cancer Inst 85: 19, 1993

73. Kochen M, McCurdy S: Circumcision and the risk of cancer of the penis: A lifetable analysis. Am J Dis Child 134: 484, 1980

74. Dean AL Jr: Epithelioma of the penis. J Urol 83: 252, 1935

75. Lenowitz H, Graham AP: Carcinoma of the penis. J Urol 56: 458, 1946

76. Hardner GJ, Bhaualaph T, Murphy GP et al: Carcinoma of the penis: Analysis of therapy in 100 consecutive cases. J Urol 108: 428, 1972

77. Dagher R, Selzer ML, Lapides J: Carcinoma of the penis and the anticircumcision crusade. J Urol 110: 79, 1973

78. Schoen EJ: The relationship between circumcision and cancer of the penis. Cancer J Clin 41: 306, 1991

79. Boczko S, Freed S: Penile carcinoma in circumcised males. NY State J Med 12: 1903, 1979

80. Leiter E, Lefkovits AM: Circumcision and penile carcinoma. NY State J Med 75: 1520, 1975

81. Rogus B J: Squamous cell carcinoma in a young circumcised man. J Urol 138: 861, 1987

82. Brinton LA, Jun-Yao L, Shou-De Ret al: Risk factors for penile cancer: Results from a case-control study in China. Int J Cancer 47:504, 1991

83. Swafford TD: Circumcision and the risk of cancer of the penis. Am J Dis Child 139: 112, 1985

84. Bissada KN, Morcos RR, EI-Senoussi M: Post-circumcision carcinoma of the penis: I. Clinical aspects. J Urol 135: 283, 1986

85. Wolbarst AL: Circumcision and penlie carcinoma. Lancet 1: 150, 1932

86. Riveros M, Gorostiaga R: Cancer of the penis. Arch Surg 85: 377, 1962

87. Daling JR, Sherman K J, Hislop TG et al: Cigarette smoking and the risk of anogenital cancer. Am J Epidemiol 135: 180, 1992

88. Zur Hausen H: intracellular surveillance of persisting viral infections: Human genital cancer results from deficient cellular control of papillomavirus gone expression. Lancet 2: 489, 1986

89. Kochen M, McCurdy SA: Letter to editor: Circumcision. Am J Dis Child 133: 1079, 1979

90. Swafford TD: Letter to editor: Circumcision and the risk of cancer of the penis. Am J Dis Child 139: 112, 1985

91. Preston EN: Wither the foreskin? JAMA 213: 1853, 1970

92. Lilienfield AM, Graham S: Validity of determining circumcision status by questionnaire as related to epidemiologic studies of cancer of the cervix. J Natl Cancer Inst 21: 713, 1958

93. Barrasso R, De Brux J, Croissant Oet al: High prevalence of papillomavirus-associated penlie intraepithelial neoplasia in sexual partners of women with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. N Engl J Med 317:916, 1987

94. Terris M, Wilson F, Nelson JH: Relation of circumcision to cancer of the cervix. Am J Obstet Gynecol 117: 1056, 1973

95. Dunn JE, Buell P: Association of cervical cancer with circumcision of the sexual partner. J Natl Cancer Inst 22: 749, 1959

96. Onuigbo WIB: Carcinoma of the uterine cervix in Nigerian Igbos. Gynecol Oncol 4: 255, 1976

97. Aitken-Swan J, Baird D: Circumcision and cancer of the cervix. Br J Cancer 19: 217, 1965

98. Hira SK, Kamanga J, Macuacua R et al: Genital ulcers and male circumcision as risk factors for acquiring HIV-1 in Zambia. J infect Dis 1: 584, 1990

99. Parker SW, Stewart AJ, Wren NM et al: Circumcision and sexually transmitted disease. Med J Aust 2: 288, 1983

100. Parker JDJ, Banatvala JE : Herpes genitalis and circumcision. Br J Vener Dis 43: 211, 1967

101. Taylor PK, Rodin P: Herpes genitalis and circumcision. Br J Vener Dis 51: 274, 1975

102. Schlossberger NM, Turner RA, Irwin CE: Early adolescent knowledge and attitudes about circumcision: Methods and implications for research. J Adolesc Health 12: 293, 1991

103. Cameron DW, D'Costa LJ, Maitha GM et al: Female to male transmission of human immunodeficiency virus type 1: Risk factors for seroconversion in men. Lancet 2: 403, 1989

104. Simonsen JN, Cameron DW, Gakinya MN et al: Human immunodeficiency virus infection among men with sexually transmitted diseases. N Engl J Med 319: 274, 1988

105. Smith GL, Greenup R, Takafuji ET: Circumcision as a risk factor for urethritis in racial groups. Am J Public Health 77: 452, 1987

106. Cook LS, Koutsky LA, Holmes KK: Circumcision and sexually transmitted diseases. Am J Public Health 84: 197, 1994

107. Wilson RA: Circumcision and venereal disease. Can Med Assoc J 56: 54, 1947

108. Stein MT, Marx M, Taggart SL et al: Routine neonatal circumcision: The gap between contemporary policy and practice. J Fam Pract 15: 47, 1982

109. Maisels MJ, Hayes B, Conrad S, Chez RA: Circumcision: The effect of information on parental decision making. Pediatrics 71: 453, 1983

110. Herrera AJ, Cochran B, Herrera A et al: Parental information and circumcision in highly motivated couples with higher education. Pediatrics 71: 233, 1983

111. Herrera AJ, Hsu AS, Salcedo UT et al: Role of parental information in the incidence of circumcision. Pediatrics 70: 597, 1982

112. Bigelow J: The joy of uncircumcising: Restore your birthright and maximize sexual pleasure. Aptos, CA, Hourglass Book Publishing, 1992

113. Ritter TJ: Say no to circumcision: 40 compelling reasons why you should respect birthright and keep your son whole. Aptos, CA, Hourglass Book Publishing, 1992

114. Yellen HS: Bloodless circumcision of the newborn. Am J Obstet Gynecol 30: 146, 1935

115. Stang H J, Gunnar MR, Snellman Let at: Local anesthesia for neonatal circumcision: Effects on distress and cortisol response. JAMA 259: 1507, 1988

116. Talbert LM, Kraybill EN, Potter HD: Adrenal cortical response to circumcision in the neonate. Obstet Gynecol 48: 208, 1978

117. Gunner MR, Fish RO, Malone S: The effects of a pacifying stimulus on behavioral and adrenocorticai response to circumcision in the newborn. J Am Acad Child Psychiatry 23: 34, 1984

118. Rawlings D J, Miller PA, Engel RR: The effects of circumcision on transcutaneous PO₂ in term infants. Am J Dis Child 134: 676, 1980

119. Anders TF, Chaleman RJ: The effects of circumcision on sleep-wake states in human neonales. Psychosom Med 30: 174, 1974

120. Arnett RM, Jones JS, Horger EO III: Effectiveness of 1% lidocaine dorsal penlie block in infant circumcision. Am J Obstet Gynecol 163: 1074, 1990

121. Williamson PS, Williamson ML: Physiologic stress reduction by a local anesthetic during newborn circumcision. Pediatrics 1: 36, 1983

122. Holve RL, Bromberger PJ, Goreman HD et al: Regional anesthesia during newborn circumcision: Effect on infant pain response. Clin Pediatr 22: 813, 1983

123. Maxwell LG, Yaster M, Wetzel RC et al: Penile nerve block for newborn circumcision. Obstet Gynecol 70: 415, 1987

124. Fontaine P, Dittberner D, Scheltema KE: The safety of dorsal penile nerve block for neonatai circumcision. J Fam Pract 39: 243, 1994

125. Dixon S, Snyder J, Holve R et al: Behavioural effects of circumcision with and without anesthesia. J Dev Behav Pediatr 5: 246, 1984

126. Kirya C, Werthman MW: Neonatal circumcision and penile dorsal nerve block: A painless procedure. J Pediatr 92: 998, 1978

127. Maciello AL: Anesthesia for neonatal circumcision: Local anesthesia is better than dorsal penlie nerve block. Obstet Gynecol 75: 834, 1990

128. Weatherstone KB, Rasmussen LB, Erenberg A et al: Safety and efficacy of a topical anesthetic for neonatal circumcision. Pediatrics 92: 710, 1993

129. Benini F, Johnston CC, Faucher D et al: Topical anesthesia during circumcision in newborn infants. JAMA 270: 850, 1993

130. Pelosi MA, Apuzzio J: Making circumcision safe and painless. Contemp Obstet Gynecol 24: 42, 1984

131. Fontaine P, Toffler WL: Dorsal penile nerve block for newborn circumcision. Am Fam Pract 43: 1327, 1991

132. Shoen EJ, Fischell AA: Pain in neonatal circumcision. Clin Pediatr 30: 429, 1991

133. Spencer DM, Miller KA, O'Quinn M et al: Dorsal penile nerve block in neonatal circumcision: Chloroprocaine versus lidocaine. Am J Perinatol 9: 214, 1992

134. Sara CA, Lowry CJ: A complication of circumcision and dorsal nerve block of the penis. Anaesth Intensive Care 13: 79, 1984

135. Mandel S: Methemoglobinemia following neonatal circumcision. JAMA 261: 702, 1989

136. Ozbek N, Sarikayalar F: Toxic methaemoglobinaemia after circumcision. Eur J Pediatr 152: 80, 1993

137. Physician Desk Reference: EMLA Cream, p 544. Montvale, NJ, Medical Economics Data Production, 1995

138. Lee J J, Forrester P: EMLA for postoperative analgesia for day case circumcision in children. Anaesthesia 47: 1081, 1992

139. Blass EM, Hoffmeyer LB: Sucrose as an analgesic for newborn infants. Pediatrics 87: 215, 1991

140. Ipp MM, Gold R, Greenberg S et al: Acetaminophen prophylaxis of adverse reactions following vaccination of infants with diptheria-pertussis-tetanus toxoids-polio vaccine. Pediatr Infect Dis J 6: 721, 1987

141. Howard CR, Howard FM, Weitzman ML: Acetaminophen analgesia in neonatal circumcision: The effect on pain. Pediatrics 93: 641, 1994

142. Kaplan GW: Complication of circumcision. Urol Clin North Am 10: 543, 1983

143. Mor A, Eshel G, Aladjem M et al: Tachycardia and heart failure after ritual circumcision. Arch Dis Child 62: 80, 1987

144. Denton J, Schreiner RL, Pearson J: Circumcision complication: Reaction to treatment of local hemorrhage with topical epinephrine in high concentration. Clin Pediatr 17: 285, 1978

145. Braren V: Letter to the editor: Circumcision complication. Clin Pediatr 18: 639, 1979

146. Sterenberg N, Golan J, Ben-Hur N: Necrosis of the glands penis following neonatal circumcision. Plast Reconstr Surg 68: 237, 1981

147. Poland RL: The question of routine neonatal circumcision. N Engl J Med 322: 1312, 1990

148. Snyder HM: To circumcise or not. Hosp Pract 201, 1991

149. Wiswell TE, Geschke DW: Risk from circumcision during the first month of life compared with those for uncircumcised boys. Pediatrics 83: 1011, 1989

150. Gee WF, Ansell JS: Neonatal circumcision: A ten-year overview: With comparison to the Gomco clamp and the Plastibell device. Pediatrics 58: 824, 1976

151. Shulman J, Ben-Hut N, Neuman Z: Surgical complications of circumcision. Am J Dis Child 107: 149, 1964

152. Griffiths DM, Atwell JT, Freeman NV: A prospective study of the indications and morbidity of circumcision in children. Eur Urol 11: 184, 1985

153. Patel H: The problem of routine circumcision. Can Med Assoc J 95: 576, 1966

154. Speert H: Circumcision of the newborn, an appraisal of its present status. Obstet Gynecol 2: 164, 1953

155. Woodside JR: Necrotizing fasciitis after neonatal circumcision. Am J Dis Child 134: 301, 1980

156. Sussman SJ, Schiller RP, Shashilumar VL: Fournier's syndrome: A report of three cases and review of the literature. Am J Dis Child 132: 1189, 1978

157. Souflock JM, Pemberton PJ: Neonatai meningitis and circumcision. Med J Aust 1: 332, 1977

158. Cleary TG, Kohl S: Overwhelming infection with group B β-hemolytic streptococcus associated with circumcision. Pediatrics 64: 301, 1979

159. Annunziato D, Goldblum LM: Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome: A complication of circumcision. Am J Dis Child 132: 1187, 1978

160. Procopis PG, Kewley GD: Complication of circumcision. Med J Aust 1: 15, 1982

161. Levitt SB, Smith RB, Ship RG: Iatrogenic microphallus secondary to circumcision. Urology 8: 472, 1976

162. Sotolongo JR, Hoffman S, Gribetz ME: Penile denution injuries after circumcision. J Urol 133: 102, 1985

163. Radhakrishnan J, Reyes HM: Penoplasty for buffed penis secondary to “radical” circumcision. J Pediatr Surg 19: 629, 1984

164. Sathaye UV, Goswami AK, Sharma SK: Skin bridge—a complication of paediatric circumcision. Br J Urol 66: 214, 1990

165. Berry CD, Cross RC: Urethral meatal caliber in circumcised and uncircumcised males. Am J Dis Child 92: 52, 1956

166. Clair DL, Cladamone AA: Pediatric office procedures. Urol Clin Noah Am 15: 715, 1988

167. Morgan WKC: Penlie plunder. Med J Aust 1: 102, 1967

168. Valentine RJ: Adult circumcision: A personal report. Med Aspects Hum Sex 8: 31, 1974

169. Harnes JR: The foreskin saga. JAMA 217: 1241, 1971

170. Falliers CJ: Circumcision. JAMA 24: 2194, 1978

171. Audry G, Buis J, Vazquez MP et al: Amputation of penis after circumcision—penoplasty using expandable prosthesis. Eur J Pediatr Surg 4: 44, 1994

172. Connelly KP, Shropshire LC, Salzberg A: Gastric rupture associated with prolonged crying in a newborn undergoing circumcision. Clin Pediatr 560, 1992

173. Warwick DJ, Dickson WA: Keloid of the penis after circumcision. Postgrad Med 69: 236, 1993

174. Datta NS, Zinner NR: Complication from Plastibell circumcision ring. Urology 9: 57, 1977

175. Craig JC. Grigor WG, Knight JF: Acute obstructive uropathy—a rare complication of circumcision. Eur J Pediatr 153: 369, 1994

176. Eason JD, McDonnell, Clark G: Male ritual circumcision resulting in acute renal failure. Br Med J 309: 660, 1994

177. Auerbach MR, Scanlon JW: Recurrence of pneumothorax as a possible complication of elective circumcision. Am J Obstet Gynecol 132: 583, 1978

178. King LR: Neonatal circumcision in the US in 1982. J Urol 128: 1135, 1982

179. Fergusson DM, Lawton JM, Shannon FT: Neonatal circumcision and penile problems: an 8-year longitudinal study. Pediatrics 81: 537, 1988

180. Fakjian N, Hunter S, Cole GW et al: An argument for circumcision: Prevention of balanitis in the adult. Arch Dermatol 126: 1046, 1990

181. Lovell JE, Cox J: Maternal attitudes toward circumcision. J Fam Pract 9:8ll, 1979

182. Gunjuts TG, Humphrey JBC, Taras HL et al: Routine neonatal circumcision: A cost-utility analysis. Med Decis Making 11:282, i991

183. Cadman D, Gafni A, McNamee J: Newborn circumcision: An economic perspective. Can Med Assoc J 131: 1353, 1984

184. Schneider J: Circumcision and “uncircumcision.” S Afr Med J 50: 556, 1976

185. Rubin JP: Celsus' decircumcision operation. Urology 16: 121, 1980

186. Winberg J: Is routine circumcision advised in boys with obstructive uropathy in order to prevent urinary tract infection? Pediatr Nephrol 5: 178, 1991

187. Zweitter J: Teaching residents circumcision. Fam Med 26: 4, 1994

188. Wellington N, Rieder MJ: Attitudes and practices regarding analgesia for newborn circumcision. Pediatrics 92: 541, 1993

189. Ryan CA, Finer NN: Changing attitudes and practices regarding local analgesia for newborn circumcision. Pediatrics 94: 230, 1994

190. Fontaine P: Local anesthesia for neonatal circumcisions: Are family practice residents likely to use it? Fam Med 22: 371, 1990

191. Toffler WL, Sinclair AE, White KA: Dorsal penile nerve block during newborn circumcision: Underutilization of a proven technique? J Am Board Fam Pract 3: 171, 1990

192. Herrera AJ, Macaraeg AL: Physicians' attitudes toward circumcision. Am J Obstet Gynecol 148: 825, 1984

193. Herrera AJ, Trouern-Trend JBG: Routine neonatal circumcision. Am J Dis Child 133: 1069, 1979

194. Brownlee HJ, Coble WR: Neonatal circumcision: Attitudes and practices of United States Air Force Physicians. Mil Med 149: 462, 1984