- A biological explanation for the association between intact foreskin
and UTI has been put forth. Uropathogens appear to bind more avidly
to the mucosal surface of the foreskin than they bind to stratified
squamous epithelium.5 Uncircumcised boys may have higher rates of periurethral
colonization with uropathogens than circumcised boys.6
- Potential confounding variables such as socioeconomic status, gestational
age at birth, duration of breastfeeding, and race were not addressed
in this study.
- There is also the potential for detection bias
- Parents must weigh many factors in their decision regarding circumcision
for a child, including religious views, immediate risks of the procedure,
psychological well-being, future risk of STD, as well as risk of UTI.
- AAP Circumcision Policy Statement (RE9850). Pediatrics 1999;
- Wiswell et al. Decreased incidence of urinary tract infections in
circumcised male infants. Pediatrics 1985; 75:901-3.
- Wiswell et al. Risks from circumcision during the first month of
life compared with those for uncircumcised boys. Pediatrics 1989;83:1011-5.
- Craig et al. Effect of circumcision on incidence of urinary tract
infection in preschool boys. Journal of Pediatrics 1996;128.
- Fussell et al. Adherence of bacteria to human foreskins. Journal
of Urology 1988;140:997-1001.
- Glennon et al. Circumcision and periurethral carriage of Proteus mirabilis
in boys. Archives of Disease in Children 1988;63;556-7.