[This file contains links to cited articles, additional supporting, and supplemental information on the World Wide Web. Links have been added in the topic heading or elsewhere in the text for the convenience of the reader who wishes to view additional information on a particular topic. Clicking on the link will take the reader to additional information.]

[DOCTORS OPPOSING CIRCUMCISION has written a letter to the American Academy of Pediatrics, which alleges numerous compromises of good medical practice and bioethics in this Policy Statement.]

ABSTRACT. Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.

---

ABBREVIATIONS. UTI, urinary tract infection; STD, sexually transmitted disease; NCHS; National Center for Health Statistics; DPNB, dorsal penile nerve block; SCCP, squamous cell carcinoma of the penis; HPV, human papilloma virus; HIV, human immunodeficency virus.

---

Although ¹the exact frequency is unknown, it is estimated that 1.2 million newborn males are circumcised in the United States annually at a cost of between $150 and $270 million. This practice has been advocated for reasons that vary from symbolic ritual to preventive health measure. Until the last half century, there has been limited scientific evidence to support or repudiate the routine practice of male circumcision.

      Over the past several decades, the American Academy of Pediatrics has published several policy statements on neonatal circumcision of the male infant.^1-3 Beginning in its 1971 manual, Standards and Recommendations of Hospital Care of Newborn Infants, and reiterated in the 1975 and 1983 revisions, the Academy concluded that there was no absolute medical indication for routine circumcision.

      In 1989, because of new research on circumcision status and urinary tract infection (UTI) and sexually transmitted disease (STD)/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, the Academy concluded that newborn male circumcision has potential health benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.⁴ This statement also recommended that when circumcision is considered the benefits and risks should be explained to the parents and informed consent obtained. Subsequently, a number of medical societies in the developed world have published statements that do not support routine circumcision of male newborns,^5-7 In its position statement, the Australian College of Paediatrics emphasized that in all cases, the medical attendant should avoid exaggeration of either the risks or benefits of this procedure.⁵

[This article mentions potential benefits. It is important for the reader to understand that potential refers to that which is capable of existence but is not yet in existence; or that which exists in possibility but not in actuality. A potential benefit, therefore, is one that has been suggested but cannot be proven to actually exist.]

      Because of the ongoing debate, as well as the publication of new research, it was appropriate to reevaluate the issue of routine neonatal circumcision. This Task Force adopted an evidence-based approach to analyzing the medical literature concerning circumcision. The studies reviewed were obtained through a search of the English language medical literature from 1960 to the present and, additionally, through a search of the bibliographies of the published studies.

EPIDEMIOLOGY

The percentage of male infants circumcised in infancy varies by geographic location, by religious affiliation, and to some extent, by socioeconomic classification. Circumcision is uncommon in Asia, South America, Central America, and most of Europe. In Canada, ~48% of males are circumcised.⁸ Some groups such as followers of the Jewish and Islamic faiths practice circumcision for religious and cultural reasons.^9,10

      There are few data to help estimate accurately the number of newborn males circumcised annually in the United States. According to the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), 64.1% of male infants were circumcised in the United States during 1995 (unpublished data, 1997). However, data from the NCHS are based on voluntary collection of data from participating hospitals; <5% of hospitals in the United States participate. Thus, NCHS data provide an inadequate sample to estimate national circumcision frequency.

      More specific data on circumcision rates are >1 decade old. Data obtained from hospital records in metropolitan Atlanta, GA, document circumcision rates of 84% to 89% in the period 1985 to 1986.¹¹ This study demonstrated that hospital discharge data, which rely on medical record face sheet information, underestimate the true incidence of neonatal circumcision. Using such hospital discharge data, it was estimated that 45.5% of male infants born in New York City and 69.6% of male infants born elsewhere in New York State were circumcised at birth in the year 1985.¹² In addition, none of these sources included rates for ritual circumcision or subsequent outpatient procedures, thus, these rates of circumcision are even more likely to be underestimated.

      Differences in circumcision rates related to demographic variables are not well described. One study, which surveyed adult men, suggested that in the United States, the frequency of circumcision varies directly with maternal education, a marker for socioeconomic status.¹³ Circumcision rates also vary among racial and ethnic groups, with whites considerably more likely to be circumcised than blacks or Hispanics (81% vs 64% or 54%).¹³

EMBRYOLOGIC AND ANATOMIC
CONSIDERATIONS

      Embryologically, the penis glans derives from the genital tubercle, which has developed by 4 to 6 weeks' gestation. The primitive urethral folds present in the male human embyro fuse to form the penile urethra. The genital swellings, present early in development, subsequently become the scrotum in males. The skin of the body of the penis begins growing forward at about 8 weeks' gestation and covers the glans eventually. Initially, squamous epithelium has no separation between the glans and the foreskin. Separation of epithelial layers that may be only partially complete at birth progress with development of desquamated tissue in pockets until the complete separation of tissue layers forms the preputial space. As a result of the incomplete separation, the prepuce or foreskin may not be fully retractable until several years after birth. In ~90% of uncircumcised males, the foreskin is retractable by age 5 years. Partial adhesions with smegma accumulation may persist in small numbers of uncircumcised males through childhood and even into adolescence.^14-16

      Epidermal keratinization occurs on the skin of the penile shaft but not on the mucosal surface of the foreskin.¹⁵ One study suggests that there may be a concentration of specialized sensory cells in specific ridged areas of the foreskin but not in the skin of the penile shaft. There are conflicting data regarding the immune capabilities of preputial tissue. Studies differ on the number, distribution, and location of Langerhans' cells in the foreskin.^18,19 No controlled scientific data are available regarding the differing immune function in a penis with or without a foreskin.

PENILE PROBLEMS

      Penile problems may develop in both circumcised and uncircumcised males. The true frequency of these problems is unknown. In one 8-year study of a cohort of 1948 uncircumcised Danish schoolboys between 6 and 17 years of age, 4% of the boys had phimosis (which prevented the foreskin from being retracted by gentle manipulation) and 2% had "tight prepuce" so that the foreskin could be retracted but with slight difficulty.¹⁶

      The only longitudinal study to address this issue in both circumcised and uncircumcised boys followed a birth cohort of 500 New Zealand boys until the age of 8 years; it was noted that the relationship between risks of penile problems and circumcision status varied with the child's age.²⁰ The majority of these problems were described as penile inflammation and were noted to be relatively minor. In this study, circumcised infant boys had a significantly higher risk of penile problems (such as meatitis) than did uncircumcised boys, whereas, after infancy, the rate of penile problems (such as balanitis and inflammation of the foreskin) were significantly higher in older uncircumcised boys.

      A retrospective study conducted at two inner city clinics asked parents of boys 4 months to 12 years of age to recall whether their sons had ever developed any penile problems. Hispanic parents constituted 73% of those responding. Although parents of uncircumcised boys reported an increased number of medical visits for penile problems, the frequency of balanitis and irritation was not significantly different between circumcised and uncircumcised boys.²¹ In addition, most problems reported were minor. Case reports suggest an increased frequency of paraphimosis in the uncircumcised elderly men who require intermittent or chronic bladder catheterization.^22-24 Other case reports indicate that balanitis occurs more frequently in uncircumcised men than in circumcised men and suggest an increased frequency of balanitis in men with diabetes and in uncircumcised soldiers during wartime.²⁵

      Chronic inflammation of the foreskin may result in a secondary phimosis caused by scarring.^23,26 Medical therapy has been successful in resolving both secondary phimosis and paraphimosis, but surgical intervention is sometimes indicated.^22,23,26-28

THE ROLE OF HYGIENE

      Circumcision has been suggested as an effective method of maintaining penile hygienePDF since the time of the Egyptian dynasties, but there is little evidence to affirm the association between circumcision status and optimum penile hygiene.

      In one study, appropriate hygiene decreased significantly the incidence of phimosis, adhesions, and inflammation, but did not eliminate all problems.²⁹ In this study, 60% of parents remembered, receiving instructions on the care of the uncircumcised penis, and most followed the advice they were given. Various studies suggest that genital hygiene needs to be emphasized as a preventive health topic throughout a patient's lifetime.^16,21,29,30

SEXUAL PRACTICE, SENSATION, AND
CIRCUMCISION STATUS

      A survey of adult males using self-report suggests more varied sexual practice and less sexual dysfunction in circumcised adult men.¹³ There are anecdotal reports that penile sensation and sexual satisfaction are decreased for circumcised males. Masters and Johnson noted no difference in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination on the ventral or dorsal surfaces of the glans penis between circumcised and uncircumcised men.³¹

METHODS OF CIRCUMCISION

      There are three methods of circumcision that are commonly used in the newborn male. These are all include the use of devices: the Gomco clamp, the Plastibell device, and the Mogen clamp (or variations derived from the same principle on which each of these devices is based).

      The elements that are common to the use of each of these devices to accomplish circumcision include the following: estimation of the amount of external skin to be removed; dilation of the preputial orifice so that the glans can be visualized to ensure that the glans itself is normal; bluntly freeing the inner preputial epithelium from the epithelium of the glans; placing the device (at times a dorsal slit is necessary to do so); leaving the device in situ long enough to produce hemostasis and amputation of the foreskin.

      It is important that those who practice circumcision become sufficiently skilled at the technical aspects of the procedure so that complications can be minimized. Those performing circumcision should be adept at suturing to ensure that hemostasis can be secured when necessary and that skin edges can be brought together if they should separate widely. If circumcision is done in the newborn period, it should be performed only on infants who are stable and healthy.

COMPLICATIONS OF THE CIRCUMCISION
PROCEDURE

      The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown.³² Reports of two large series have suggested that the complication rate is somewhere between 0.2% and 0.6%.^33,34 Most of the complications that do occur are minor.³⁵ The most frequent complication, bleeding is seen in ~0.1% of circumcisions.³⁵ It is quite rare to need transfusion after a circumcision because most bleeding episodes can be handled quite well with local measures (pressure, hemostatic agents, cautery, sutures). Infection is the second most common of the complications, but most of these infections are minor and are manifest only by some local redness and purulence.³⁵ There also are isolated case reports of other complications such as recurrent phimosis, wound separation, concealed penis, unsatisfactory cosmesis because of excess skin, skin bridges, urinary retention, meatitis, meatal stenosis, chordee, inclusion cysts, and retained Plastibell devices.²⁶ Case reports have been noted associating circumcision with such rare events as scalded skin syndrome, necrotizing fasciitis, sepsis, and meningitis, as well as with major surgical problems such as urethral fistula, amputation of a portion of the glans penis, and penile necrosis.^32,35

CIRCUMCISION AFTER THE NEWBORN PERIOD

      Should circumcision become necessary after the newborn period because problems have developed, general anesthesia is often used and requires a more formal surgical procedure necessitating hemostasis and suturing of skin edges. Although the procedural complications are generally the same as in newborn circumcision, there is the added risk attendant to general anesthesia if it is used. Additionally, there is morbidity in the form of time lost from school or work to be considered.

ANALGESIA

[It is important for parents to understand that analgesic procedures described in this policy statement only reduce the pain experienced to a degree. The infant still feels pain as compared with a non-circumcised infant. These procedures would not be considered acceptable for use in an adult patient. The pre-verbal infant, however, cannot complain. The best way to avoid the pain of circumcision is to avoid the circumcision.]

      There is considerable evidence that newborns who are circumcised without analgesia experience pain and physiologic stress. Neonatal physiologic responses to circumcision include changes in heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen saturation, and cortisol levels.^36-39 One report has noted that circumcised infants exhibit a stronger pain response to subsequent routine immunization than do uncircumcised infants.⁴⁰ Several methods to provide analgesia for circumcision have been evaluated.

Eutectic Mixture of Local Anesthetics (EMLA Cream)

      EMLA cream, containing a 2.5% lidocaine and 2.5% prilocaine, attenuates the pain response to circumcision when applied 60 to 90 minutes before the procedure. Compared with placebo groups, neonates who had EMLA cream applied spend less time crying and have smaller increases in heart rate during circumcisions.^41-43 The analgesic effect is limited during the phases associated with extensive tissue trauma such as during lysis of adhesions and tightening of the clamp.^45,49

      Ideally, 1 to 2 g of EMLA cream is applied to the distal half of the penis, which is then wrapped in an occlusive dressing. There is a theoretic concern about the potential for neonates to develop methemoglobinemia after the application of EMLA cream, because a metabolite of prilocaine can oxidize hemoglobin to methemoglobin. When measured, blood levels of methemoglobin in neonates after the application of 1 g of EMLA cream have been well below toxic levels.^42-46 Two cases of methemoglobinemia in infants occurred after >3 g of EMLA cream was applied; in one of these cases, the infant was also receiving sulfamethoxadole.^47,48 EMLA cream should not be used in neonates who are receiving other drugs known to induce methemoglobinemia.

Dorsal Penile Nerve Block (DPNB)

      DPNB is very effective in reducing the behavioral and physiologic indicators of pain caused by circumcision. Compared with control subjects who received no analgesia, neonates with DPNB cry 45% to 76% less,^39,49-51 have 34% to 50% smaller increases in oxygen saturation during the procedure.^39,52 Additionally, DPNB lidocaine attenuates the adrenocortical stress response compared with control subjects who received no injections or injections of saline.⁴⁹ The technique of Kirya and Werthman is used most commonly to perform the block.⁵³ A 27-gauge needle is used to inject the 0.4 mL of 1% lidocaine to be administered at both the 10- and 2- o'clock positions at the base of the penis. The needle is directed posteromedially 3 to 5 mm on each side until Buck's fascia is encountered. After aspiration, the local anesthetic is injected Systemic lidocaine levels obtained with use of this technique demonstrated peak concentrations at 60 minutes, well below toxic ranges.⁵² Several studies evaluating the efficacy of DPNB reported bruising as the most frequent complication.^49,50,54,55 Hematomas were rarely seen and caused no long-term injury.^50,56 A single report of penile necrosis may have been secondary to the surgical technique rather than to the DPNB.⁵⁷

Subcutaneous Ring Block

      A subcutaneous circumferential ring of 0.8 mL of 1% lidocaine without epinephrine at the midshaft of the penis was found to be more effective than EMLA cream or DPNB in a recent study.⁴³ Although all treatment groups experienced an attenuated pain response, the ring block appeared to prevent crying and increases in heart rates more consistently than did EMLA cream or DPNB throughout all stages of circumcision. In another study, after a subcutaneous injection of lidocaine had been given at the level of the corona, it was noted that fewer infants cried during the dissection of the foreskin, placement of the bell, and clamping with the Gomco, compared with those infants with a DPNB,⁵⁸ Additionally, the cortisol response was diminished in the subcutaneous group compared with the DPNB group.⁵⁸ No complications of this simple and highly effective technique have been reported.

Others

      Sucrose on a pacifier has been demonstrated to be more effective than water for decreasing cries during circumcision.⁵⁹ Acetominophen may provide analgesia after the immediate postoperative period.⁶⁰ Neither technique is sufficient for the operative pain and cannot be recommended as the sole method of analgesia. A more physiologic positioning of the infant in a padded environment may decrease distress during the procedure.⁶¹

      In summary, analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision, and, therefore, adequate analgesia should be provided if neonatal circumcision is performed. EMLA cream, DPNB, and a subcutaneous ring block are options, although the subcutaneous ring block may provide the most effective analgesia.

CIRCUMCISION STATUS AND UTI IN
INFANT MALES

      There have been several studies published in the medical literature over the past 15 years that address the association between circumcision status and UTI.^62-68 Because the majority of UTI in males occur during the first year of life, almost all the studies that examine the relationship between UTI and circumcision focus on this period. All studies have shown an increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised males, with the greatest risk in infants younger than 1 year of age.

      Initial retrospective studies suggested that uncircumcised males were 10 to 20 times more likely to develop UTI than were circumcised male infants.⁶² A review published in 1993 summarized the data from nine studies and reported that uncircumcised males had a 12.0-fold increased risk of UTI compared with circumcised infant males.⁶⁹ More recent studies using cohort and case-control design also support an association, although reduced in magnitude.^{63,64,67,70-72} These studies have found a three to seven times increased risk of UTI in incircumcised male infants compared with that in circumcised male infants. This consistent association was found in samples from populations in which circumcision rates varied from low (<20%),⁶⁷ to medium (45%),⁷² to high (75%).^63,64 One of these, a population based cohort study of 58,000 Canadian infants, found that the hospital admission rate for UTI in infant males younger than 1 year of age was 1.88 per 1000 in circumcised infants and 7.02 per 1000, for a relative risk of 3.7.⁷²

      The proportion of male infants who have symptomatic UTI during the first year of life is somewhat difficult to estimate because the rate varies among studies. A study at an urban emergency department found that 2.5% of febrile male infants <60 days of age had UTI.⁷¹ Data from Europe, based on a largely uncircumcised population, report UTI rates of 1.2% for infant boys.⁷³ The number is similar to the rates of 0.7% to 1.4% reported for uncircumcised males in the United States and Canada.^72,74 In comparison, UTI rates for circumcised males are reported to be 0.12% to 0.19% Although these cross-cultural data do not provide information on specific individual risk factors, the similarity of rates for uncircumcised male infants support an association between circumcision status and UTI. Using these rates and the increased risks suggested from the literature, one can estimate that 7 to 14 of 1000 uncircumcised male infants will develop a UTI during the first year of life, compared with 1 to 2 of 1000 circumcised male infants.

      Although all these studies have shown an increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised male infants, it is difficult to summarize and compare results because of differences in methodology, samples of infants studied, determination of circumcision status, method of urine collection, UTI definition, and assessment of confounding variables. Furthermore, in some studies, methods for determining the reliability of the data were not described.

      Few of the studies have evaluated the association between UTI in male infants and circumcision status have looked at potential confounders (such as prematurity, breastfeeding, and method of urine collection) in a rigorous way. For example, because premature infants appear to be at increased risk for UTI,^75-77 the inclusion of hospitalized premature infants in a study population may act as a confounder by suggesting an increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised infants. Premature infants usually are not circumcised because of their fragile health status.⁷⁸

      In another example, breastfeeding was shown to have a threefold protective effect on the incidence of UTI in a sample of uncircumcised infants. However, breastfeeding status has not been evaluated sytematically in studies assessing UTI and circumcision status.⁷⁹

      One study suggested that the method used to obtain urine for culture may influence the rate of infection,⁶⁴ with the greatest risk for infection noted in uncircumcised male infants who had samples taken by catherization, compared with those who had samples obtained by catherization, compared with those who had samples obtained by suprapubic aspiration. The three methods of urine collection in male infants (suprapubic aspiration vs catheterization vs bag) vary significantly in their accuracy of diagnosing UTI. Suprapubic aspiration is considered the "gold standard" but may not be used in clinical practice for reasons of parent and physician preference as well as for efficiency.^80,81 No studies addressing the association between UTI and circumcision status have used suprapubic aspiration exclusively; one study, however, did use suprapubic aspiration in 92% of urine collections and noted a 10-fold increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised male infants compared with circumcised infants.⁶⁶ There are no studies comparing urine obtained by supapubic aspiration and urethral catheterization in uncircumcised males. In the only study comparing the accuracy of catheterization and suprapubic aspiration in a sample of 35 asymtomatic boys (1 uncircumcised, 28 circumcised, and 6 with circumcision status not reported), the one false-positive urine sample with significant bacterial growth was obtained by catheterization of a 1-year-old uncircumcised male. A study in newborns demonstrated that urine sample obtained by bag technique is inadequate for diagnosing UTI in an uncircumcised male because of the high false-positive rate ⁸², however, a negative bagged urinalysis and culture makes the diagnosis of UTI unlikely.

      There is a biologically plausible explanation for a relationship between an intact foreskin and an increased association of UTI during infancy. Increased periurethral bacterial colonization may be a risk factor for UTI.⁶⁹ During the first 6 months of life, there are more uropathogenic organisms around the urethral meatus of uncircumcised infants than around that of circumcised male infants, but this decreases in both groups after the first 6 months.⁶⁵ In addition, it was demonstrated in an experimental preparation that uropathogenic bacteria adhered to and readily colonized the mucosal surface of the foreskin, but did not adhere to the keratinized surface of the foreskin.⁷⁰

      In children, UTI usually necessitates a physician visit and may involve the possibility of an invasive procedure and hospitalization. Studies on the morbidity and mortality associated with UTI in infancy have been confused by the inclusion of high-risk neonates and those with congenital anomalies.^83,84 The evidence that does exist suggests that the incidence of bacteremia associated with UTI occurs primarily during the first six months of life and is inversely related to age.^62-64,85. Although the primary incidence of bacteremia associated with UTI is 2% to 10% during the first 6 months of life, it has been noted to be as high as 21% in the neonatal period. ^83,86

      Symptomatic UTI in infancy is considered to be a marker for congenital anomalies of the genitourinary tract; however, not all infants who have UTI will have abnormal radiologic findings. A published review suggests that the majority of children with UTI will have normal radiographic examination results.⁸⁷ There is a lack of information on the sequelae of UTI in infants with a normal genitourinary system.

      There may be a relationship between young age at first symptomatic UTI and subsequent renal scar formation.^88,89 Similarly, there may be a relationship between young age (<3 years) at first episode of pyelonephritis and decreased glomerular filtration rate.⁹⁰ However, the relationship between renal scar formation and renal function is not well defined, and the long-term clinical significance of renal scars remains to be demonstrated.

      Data from multiple studies suggest that uncircumcised male infants are perhaps as much as 10 times more likely than are circumcised males to develop a UTI in the first year of life. This means that an uncircumcised male has an approximate 1 in 100 chance of developing UTI during the first year of life; a circumcised male infant has a 1 in 1000 chance of developing UTI during the first year of life. Published date from a population-based cohort study of 58,000 Canadian infants suggests an increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised infant males of lower magnitude than data from previous studies. Using data from this study, an uncircumcised male infant has a 1 in 140 chance of being hospitalized for a UTI during the first year of life; a circumcised male infant has an approximate 1 in 530 chance of being hospitalized for a UTI during the first year of life.

      In summary, all studies that have examined the association between UTI and circumcision status show an increased risk of UTI in uncircumcised males, with the greatest risk in infants younger than 1 year of age. The magnitude of the effect varies among studies. Using numbers from the literature, one can estimate that 7 to 14 of 1000 uncircumcised male infants will develop a UTI during the first year of life, compared with 1 to 2 of 1000 circumcised male infants. Although the relative risk of UTI in uncircumcised male infants compared with circumcised male infants is increased from 4- to as much as 10-fold during the first year of life, the absolute risk of developing a UTI in an uncircumcised male infant is low (at most, ~1%)

CIRCUMCISION STATUS AND CANCER
OF THE PENIS

      Cancer of the penis is a rare disease; the annual age-adjusted incidence of penile cancer is 0.9 to 1.0 per 100 000 males in the United States.⁹¹ In countries where the overwhelming majority of men are uncircumcised, the rate of cancer varies from 0.82 per 100 000 in Denmark⁹² to 2.9 to 6.8 per 100 000 in Brazil⁹³ and 2.0 to 10.5 per 100 000 in India.⁹⁴

      The literature on the relationship between circumcision status and risk of squamous cell carcinoma of the penis (SCCP) is difficult to evaluate. Reports of several case series have noted a strong association with between uncircumcised status and increased risk for penile cancer^95-97; however, there have been few rigorous hypothesis-testing investigations. SCCP exists in both preinvasive (carcinoma in situ) and invasive forms.⁹⁸ Precancerous SCCP lesions and in situ SCCP ofter occur primarily on the shaft of the penis wheras invasive SCCP may be more likely to involve the glans. It is unclear whether preinvasive and invasive forms of SCCP are separate diseases or whether invasive SCCP develops from preinvasive SCCP.⁹⁹ This uncertainty makes analysing the literature difficult. Uncircumcised status has been strongly associated with invasive SCCP in multiple case series.

      The major risk factor for penile cancer across three case-control studies was phimosis. Other risk factors include "previous genital condition," genital warts, >30 sexual partners, and cigarette smoking.^100-102 Two of the studies were conducted in areas of the world that do not practice neonatal circumcision. In the third study, in which 45% of the men had been circumcised as neonates, the risk of SCCP among men who were never circumcised was 3.2 times that of men who had been circumcised at birth. This study did not analyze in situ and invasive SCCP separately. This study also used self-report to determine circumcision status. Self-report may not be an accurate method of determining circumcision status.¹⁰³

      The strength of the association between sexual behavior in the development of penile cancer is unclear. Although there is an association of human papilloma virus (HPV) DNA and genital warts with penile cancer, the percentage of penile cancers with HPV DNA is lower than that of four other anogenital tumors (anus, cervix, vulva, vagina), implying that sexual transmission may be less of a factor in the genesis of SCCP than of these other cancers.¹⁰⁴ It may be that HPV is a co-factor for penile cancer, but that other conditions also must be present for progression to malignancy.

      Neonatal circumcision offers some protection from penile cancer; however, circumcision at a later stage does not seem to confer the same level of protection.¹⁰⁵ There is at least a three-fold increased risk of penile cancer in uncircumcised men; phimosis, a condition that exists only in uncircumcised men, increases the risk further.^92,106 The relationship among hygiene, phimosis, and penile cancer is uncertain, although many hypothesize that good hygiene prevents phimosis and penile cancer.⁹²

An annual penile cancer rate of 0.9 to 1.0 per 100 000 translates to 9 to 10 cases per year per 1 million men. Although the risk of developing penile cancer in an uncircumcised man compared with a circumcised man is increased more than threefold, it is difficult to estimate accurately the magnitude of this risk based on existing studies, Nevertheless, in a developed country such as the United States, penile cancer is a rare disease and the risk of penile cancer developing in an uncircumcised man, although increased compared with a circumcised man, is low.

CIRCUMCISION STATUS AND STD INCLUDING HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS (HIV)

Evidence regarding the relationship of circumcision to STD in general is complex and conflicting.^13,109,110 Studies suggest that circumcised males may be less at risk for syphilis than are uncircumcised males.^107,111 In addition, there is a substantial body of evidence that links non-circumcision in men with risk for HIV infection.^19,112-134 There does appear to be a plausible biologic explanation for this association in that the mucous surface of the uncircumcised penis allows for viral attachment to lymphoid cells at or near the surface of the mucous membrane, as well as an increased likelihood of minor abrasions resulting in increased HIV access to target tissues. However, behavioral factors appear to be far more important than circumcision status.

ETHICAL ISSUES

      The practice of medicine has long respected an adult's right to self-determination in health care decision-making. This principle has been operationalized through the doctrine of informed consent. The process of informed consent obligates the physician to explain any procedure or treatment and to enumerate the risks, benefits, and alternatives for the patient to make an informed choice. For infants and young children who lack the capacity to decide for themselves, a surrogate, generally a parent, must make such choices.¹¹⁸

      Parents and physicians each have an ethical duty to the child to attempt to secure the child's best interest and well-being.¹¹⁹ However, it is often uncertain as to what is in the best interest of any individual patient. In cases such as the decision to perform a circumcision in the neonatal period when there are potential benefits and risks and the procedure is not essential to child's current well-being, it should be the parents who determine what is in the best interest of the child. In the pluralistic society of the United States in which parents are afforded wide authority for determining what constitutes appropriate child-rearing and child welfare, it is legitimate for the parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to medical factors, when making this choice.¹¹⁹

      Physicians counseling families concerning this decision should assist the parents by explaining the potential benefits and risks and by ensuring that they understand that circumcision is an elective procedure. Parents should not be coerced by medical professionals to make this choice.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

      Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficent to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision; in which there are potential benefits, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all infants should be given unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should be done only on infants who are stable and healthy.

TASK FORCE ON CIRCUMCISION 1998-1999
Carole M. Lannon, MD, MPH, Chairperson
Ann Geryl Doll Bailey, MD
Alan R. Fleishman, MD
George W. Kaplan, MD
Jack T. Swanson, MD
Donald Coustan, MD
    American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

REFERENCES

1. American Academy of Pediatrics, Commitee on Fetus and Newborn. Standards and Recommendations for Hospital Care of Newborn Infants. 8th ed. Evanston, Il: American Academy of Pediatrics; 1971
2. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Report of the Ad Hoc Task Force on Circumcision. Pediatrics 1975;56:610-611
3. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Fetus and Newborn. Guidelines for Perinatal Care. 1st ed. Evanston, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics, 1983
4. American Academy of Pediatrics. Report of the Task Force on Circumcision. Pediatrics 1989;84:388-391
5. Australian College of Paediatrics. Position statement: routine circumcision of normal male infants and boys, 1996
6. Canadian Paediatric Society, Fetus and Newborn Commitee. Neonatal circumcision revisited. Can Med Assoc. J. 1996;154:769-780
7. The Australian Association of Paediatric Surgeons. Guidelines for circumcision, Queensland, Australia: April 1996
8. Leitch IO. Circumcision: a continuing enigma. Aust Paediatr. 1970;6:59-65
9. Kaplan GW. Circumcision: an overview. Curr Prob Pediatr 1977:7:1-33
10. Goodwin WE. Scott WW. Phalloplasty. J Urol 1952;68:903
11. O'Brien TR, Calla E, Poole WE. Incidence of neonatal circumcision in Atlanta, 1985-1986. South Med J. 1993;88:411-415.
12. Wilkes MS. Blum S. Current trends in routine newborn circumcision in New York State. NY Medical Journal 1990;90:243-246.
13. Laumann EO, Masi CM, Zuckerman ZW. Circumcision in the United States. JAMA 1997;277:1052-1057
14. Boyce WT. Care of the foreskin. Pediatr Rev1983;5:26-30
15. Gairdner D. Fate of the foreskin: a study of circumcision. Br Med J. 1949;2:1433-1437
16. Øster J. Further fate of the foreskin: incidence of preputial adhesions, phimosis, and smegma among Danish schoolboys. Arch Dis Child 1968;43:200-203
17. Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor A. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol 1996;77:291-295
18. Weiss GN, Sanders M, Westbrook KC. The distribution and density of Langerhans cells in the human prepuce: site of a diminished immune response? Isr Med Sci, 1993;29:42-43
19. Moses S, Plummer FA, Bradley JE. et al. The association between the lack of male circumcision and the risk for HIV infection: a review of the epidemiological literature. Sex Trans Dis 1994;21:201-210
20. Fergusson DM, Lawton JW, Shannon FT. Neonatal circumcision and penile problems: an 8-year longitudinal study. Pediatrics 1988;81:537-541
21. Hertzog LW, Alvarez SR. The frequency of foreskin problems in uncircumcised children. Am. J. Dis. Child. 1956;140:254-256
22. De Vries CR, Miller AK, Packer MG. Reduction of paraphimosis with hyaluindase. Urology 1996:48:464-465
23. Stenram A, Malmgors G, Okmian L. Circumcision for phimosis: indications and results. Acta Paediatr. Scand. 1986;75:321-323
24. Williams JC, Morrison PM, Richardson JR. Paraphimosis in elderly men. Am J Emerg Med 1995;13:351-353.
25. Fakjian N, Hunter S, Cole GW, Miller J. An argument for circumcision: prevention of balanitis in the adult. Arch Dermatol 1990;125:1046-1047.
26. Lafferty, PM. Management of foreskin problems. Arch Dis Child 1991;66;696-697
27. Wright JE. The treatment of childhood phimosis with topical steroid. Aust N Z J Surg 1994:64:327-328
28. Cuckow PM, Rix G, Mouriquand C. Preputial plasty: a good alternative to circumcision. J Pediatr Surg. 1994;29:561-563
29. Kreuger M, Osborn I. Effect of hygiene among the uncircumcised. J Fam Pract. 1986;22:353-355.
30. Kalcev B. Circumcision and personal hygiene in schoolboys. Med Officer 1964;122:171-173.
31. Master WL, Johnson VR. Human Sexual Response. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company; 1956:189-191
32. Nihu SD, Stock JA, Kaplan GW. Neonatal circumcision. Urol Clin North Am. 1995;22;57-65
33. Gee WF, Ansell JS. Neonatal circumcision; a ten year overview with comparison of Gomco clamp and the Plastibell device. Pediatrics. 1976;58:824-827
34. Harkavy KL. The circumcision debate. Pediatrics. 1987;79:649-650
35. Kaplan GW. Complications of circumcision. Urol Clin North Am. 1983;10:543-549
36. Talbert LM, Kraybill EN, and Potter HM. Adrenal cortical response to circumcision in the neonate. Obstet Gynecol 1976;48:208-210
37. Gunnar MR, Fisch RO, Korsvik S, et al. The effects of circumcision on serum cortisol and behavior. Psychoneuroendocrinology 1981;6:269-275
38. Rawlings DJ, Miller PA, Engel RR. The effect of circumcision on transcutaneous PO₂ in term infants. Am J Dis Child 1980;134:676-678
39. Williamson PS, Williamson ML. Physiologic stress reduction by a local anesthetic during newborn circumcision. Pediatrics 1983;71:36-40
40. Taddio A, Katz J, Ilersich AL, Koren G. Effect of neonatal circumcision on pain response during subsequent routine vaccination. Lancet 1997;349:599-603
41. Benini F, Johnston CC, Faucher D, et al. Topical anesthesia during circumcision in newborn infants. JAMA 1993;270:850-853
42. Taddio A, Stevens B, Craig K, et al. Efficacy and safety of lidocaine-prilocaine cream for pain during circumcision. N Engl J Med 1997;336;1197-1201
43. Lander J, Brady-Freyer B, Metcalfe JB, et al. Comparison of ring block, dorsal penile nerve block, and topical anesthesia for neonatal circumcision. JAMA 1997; 278:2157-2162
44. Taddio A, Ohlsson A, Elnarson T, et al. A systematic review of lidocaine-prilocaine cream (EMLA) in the treatment of acute pain in neonates. Pediatrics 1998;101;(2) URL://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/contents/full/101/2/e1/ Accessed October 8, 1998
45. Law RM, Halpern E, Martins RF, et al. Measurement of methemoglobin after EMLA analgesia for newborn circumcision. Biol Neonate 1996;70;213-217
46. Nilsson A, Engberg G, Henneberg s, et al. Inverse relationship between age-dependent erthrocyte activity of methemoglobin reductase and prilocaine induced methemoglobinemia during infancy. Br J Anaes 1990;64:72-76
47. Jakobson B, Nilsson A. Methemoglobinemia associated with prilocaine-lidocaine cream and trymethoprim-sulfamethemozale: a case report. Acta Anaesthsiol Scand. 1985;29:453-455
48. Kumar AR, Dunn N, Naqvi M. Methemoglobinemia associated with prilocaine-lidocaine cream. Clin Pediatr. 1997;36:239-240
49. Stang HJ, Gunnar MR. Snellman L, et al. Local anesthesia for neonatal circumcision: effects on distress and cortisol response. JAMA 1988;259:1507-1511
50. Holve RL, Bromberger PJ, Groveman HD, et al. Regional anesthesia during newborn circumcision during newborn circumcision. Clin Pediatr Phil 1983;22:813-818
51. Dixon S, Snyder J, Holve R. et al. Behavioral effects of circumcision with and without anesthesia. J Dev Behav Pediatr 1984;5:246-250
52. Maxwell LG, Yaster M, Wetzel RC, et al. Penile nerve block for newborn circumcision. Obstet Gynecol 1987;70:415-419
53. Kirya C, Werthman MW. Neonatal circumcision and dorsal penile nerve block - a painless procedure. J Pediatr 1978;92:998-1000
54. Mintz MR, Grillo R. Dorsal penile nerve block for circumcision. Clin Pediatr. 1989;28:590-591
55. Fontaine P, Dittberner D, Scheltema KE. The safety of dorsal penile nerve block for neonatal circumcision. J Fam Pract. 1994;39:243-248
56. Snellman LW, Stang H. Prospective evaluation of complications of circumcision with and without anesthesia. Pediatrics 1995;95:705-708
57. Sara CA, Lawry CJ. A complication of circumcision and dorsal penile nerve block of the penis. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1984;13:79-82
58. Maschiello AL. Anesthesia for neonatal circumcision: local anesthesia is better than dorsal penile nerve block. Obstet Gynecol. 1990;75:834-838
59. Blass EM, Hoffmeyer LB. Sucrose as an analgesic for newborn infants. Pediatrics 1991;87:215-218
60. Howard CR, Howard FM, Weitzman ML. Acetaminophen analgesia in neonatal circumcision: the effect on pain. Pediatrics 1994;93:641-6
61. Stang HJ, Snellman LW, C. LM, et al. Beyond dorsal penile nerve block: a more humane circumcision. Pediatrics 1997;100(2). URL: http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/100/2/e3/. Accessed August 10, 1987
62. TE Wiswell, FR Smith, and JW Bass Decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male infants Pediatrics 1985:75:901-903
63. Crain EF, Gershal JC. Urinary tract infections in febrile infants younger than 8 weeks of age. Pediatrics. 1990;86:363-367
64. Hertzog LW. Urinary tract infections and circumcision: a case control study. Am J Dis Child, 1989;143:348-350
65. Wiswell TE, Miller GM, Gelston HM, et al. Effect of circumcision status on periurethral bacterial flora during the first year of life. J Pediatr 1988; 113:442-446
66. Wiswell TE, Roscelli JD. Corroborative evidence for the decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in circumcised male infants. Pediatrics 1986;78:96-99
67. Craig JC, Knight JF, et al. Effect of circumcision on incidence of urinary tract infection in preschool boys. J Pediatr 1996;128:23-27
68. Rushton HG, Majd M. Pyelonephritis in male infants; how important is the foreskin? J Urol 1992;148:733-736
69. Wiswell TE, Hachey WE. Urinary tract infections and the uncircumcised state: an update. Clin Pediatr 1993;32:130-134
70. Fussell EN, Kaack MB, Cherry R, Roberts JA. Adherence of bacteria to human foreskin. J Urol 1988;140:997-1001
71. Shaw KN, Gorelick M, McGowan KL, et al. Prevalence of urinary tract infection in febrile young children in the emergency department. Pediatrics 1998;102:2
72. To T, Agha M, Dick PT. Feldman W. Cohort study on circumcision of newborn boys and subsequent risk of urinary tract infection. Lancet 1998;352:1813-1816
73. Wehergren B, Jedal J, Jannason G. Epidemiology of bacteriuria durng the first year of life. Acta Paediatr Scand. 1988;74:925-933
74. Wiswell TE, Hatchey WE. Urinary tract infections and the uncircumcised state: an update. Clin Pediatr.1995;32:130-134
75. Eliakim A, Dolfin T, Korzets Z, et al. Urinary tract infection in premature infants: the role of imaging studies and prophylactic therapy. J Perinatol. 1997;17:305-308
76. Edelman CM, Ogwo JE, Fine BP, et al. The prevalence of bacteriuria in full-term and premature newborn infants. J Pediatr 1973;62:128-132
77. Mitchell CK, Franco SM, Vogel BP. Incidence of urinary tract infection in an inner-city outpatient population. J Perinatol 1995;15:131-134
78. Wiswell TE, Tencer HL, Welch CA, Chamberlain JL. Circumcision in children beyond the neonatal period. Pediatrics 1993;92:791-793
79. Pisacane A, Graziano L. Mazzarella G. Breast-feeding and urinary tract infection. J Pediatr. 1992;120:87-89
80. Nelson JD, et al. Suprapubic aspiration of urine in premature and term infants. Pediatrics. 1965;36:132-134
81. Pryles CV. Percutaneous bladder aspiration and other methods of urine collection for bacteriologic study. Pediatrics 1965;36:128-131
82. Schlager TA Hendley JO, Dudley SM, et al. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1995;149:170-173
83. Aierde AI. Urinary-tract infections in African neonates. J Infect. 1992;25;55-62
84. Littlewood JM. 66 infants with urinary tract infection in first month of life. Arch Dis Child. 1972;47:218-226.
85. Bachur R, Caputo GL. Bacteremia and meningitis among infants with urinary tract infections. Pediatr Emerg Care. 1993;11:280-284
86. Ginsburg CM, McCracken GH. Urinary tract infection in young infants. Pediatrics. 1982;69:409-412
87. Dick PT, Feldman W. Routine diagnostic imaging for childhood urinary tract infections: a sytematic overview. J Pediatr. 1996;128:15-22.
88. Winberg J, Bollgren. I, Kalenius G, et al. Clinical pyelonephritis, prevention, and prognosis. Pediatr Clin North Am. 1982;29:801-814
89. Stokland B, Helstrom M, Jacobssen B. et al. Renal damage one year after first urinary tract infection: role of dimerceptosuccinic acid scintigraphy. J Pediatr 1996;129:815-820
90. Berg UB, Johansson SB. Age as a main determinant of renal functional damage in urinary tract infection. Arch Dis Child. 1983;58:963-969
91. Young JL, Percy CL, Asine AL, et al. Surveillance, epidemiology, and end results: incidence and martality data. 1972-77. Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1981;57:17
92. Frisch M, Friis S, Kjaer SJ, Melbye M. Falling incidence of penile cancer in an uncircumcised population (Denmark 1943-1990). Br Med J, 1995;311:1471
93. Villa LL, Lopes A. Human papillomavirus DNA sequences in penile carcinomas in Brazil. Intl J Cancer, 1986;37:883-885.
94. Rangabashyam N, Gnanaprakasam D, Meyyappan P, et al. Carcinoma of the penis: a review of 214 cases. J R Col Surg Edinb. 1981;26:104-109
95. Hardiner CJ, Bhanalaph T, Murphy GP, et al. Carcinoma of the penis: analysis of therapy in 100 consecutive cases. J Urol. 1972;108:428-430
96. Lenowitz H, Graham AP. Carcinoma of the penis. J Urol. 1946;56:458-454
97. Dean AL, Jr. Epithelioma of the penis. J Urol. 1955;33:252-253
98. Wade TR, Kopf AW, Ackerman AB. Boweroid papulosis of the penis. Cancer, 1978;42:1890-1903
99. Peterson RO. Urologic Pathology, 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: JB Lippincott Co:1992.
100. Hellberg D, Valentia J, Eklund T, Nilsson S. Penile cancer: is there an epidemiological role for smoking and sexual behavior? Br Med J 1987;295:1306-1308
101. Brinton LA, Li JY, Rong SD, et al. Risk factors for penile cancer results from a case control study in China. Int J Cancer, 1991:47:504-509
102. Maden C, Sherman KJ, Beckman AM, et al. History of circumcision; medical conditions, and sexual activity and risk of penile cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:19-24
103. Wynder E, Licklider SD. The question of circumcision. Cancer, 1960;13:442-445
104. Persky L, de Kernian J. Carcinoma of the penis CA Cancer J Clin. 1986;36:258-273
105. Bissada NK Morcos RR, el-Senoussi W. Post circumcision carcinoma of the penis. I. Clinical aspects. J Urol. 1986;135:283-285
106. Magoha GD, Kaale RF. Epidemiological and clinical reports of carcinoma of the penis at Kenyatta National Hospital. East African Medical J. 1995;72:359-361
107. Cook LS, Koutsky LA, Holmes KK. Circumcision and sexually transmitted diseases. Am J Pub Health. 1994:84:197-201
108. Parker SW, Stewart AJ. Circumcision and sexually transmitted diseases. Med J Aust, 1983;2:288-290
109. Donovan B. Bassett I, Bodsworth NJ. Male circumcision and common sexually transmissible diseases in a developed nation setting. Genitourin Med, 1994;70:317-320
110. Bollinger RC, Brookmeyer RB, Mehenhale SM, et al. Risk factors and clinical presentation of acute primary infection in India. JAMA. 1997;278:2085-2089
111. Newell J, Senkora K, Mosha F, et al. A population based study of syphilis and sexually transmitted disease syndromes in northwestern Tanzania. II. Risk factors and health seeking behavior. Genitourin Med, 1993:69:421-426
112. Seed J, Allen B, Murphy T, et al. Male circumcision, sexually transmitted disease, and risk of HIV. J Aquir Immune Defic Sydrom Hum Retrovirol. 1995;8:83-90
113. Kreiss JK, Hopkins SG. The association between circumcision and human immunodeficiency virus infection among homosexual men. J Infect Dis. 1993;168:1404-1408
114. Tyndall MW, Ronald R, Agoki E, et al. Increased risk of infection with human immunodeficiency virus type 1 among uncircumcised men presenting with genital ulcer disease in Kenya. J Infect Dis. 1993;23:449-453
115. Byayo J, Plummer F, Omau M, et al. Human immunodeficiency virus infection in long distance truck drivers in East Africa. Arch Intern Med, 1994;154:1391-1396
116. Pepin J, Quigley M, Todd J, et al. Association between HIV-2 infection and genital ulcer disease among male sexually transmitted disease patients in Gambia. AIDS, 1992;6:489-493
117. Simonsen JN, Cameron DW, Gakinya NM, et al. Human immunodeficiency disease among men with with sexually transmitted diseases: experience from a center in Africa. N Engl J Med, 1988;319:274-278
118. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Bioethics. Informed consent, parental permission and assent in pediatric practice. Pediatrics 1995;93:314-317
119. Fleischman AL, Nolan K, Dubler NN, et al. Caring for gravely ill children. Pediatrics 1994;94:433-439

The recommendations in this statement do not indicate an exclusive course of treatment or serve as a standard of medical care. Variations, taking into account individual circumstances, may be appropriate.

PEDIATRICS (ISSN 0031 4003) Copyright © 1999 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.