PEDIATRICS Vol. 85 No. 5 May 1990, pp. 808-812
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Larsen, G. L.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, S. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Larsen, G. L.
Right arrow Articles by Williams, S. D.

Postneonatal Circumcision: Population Profile

Gordon L. Larsen BS1 and Scott D. Williams MD1

1 From the Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah

Because postneonatal circumcision includes the risk of general anesthesia and costs more than elective neonatal circumcision, a retrospective study was performed to describe the population currently undergoing postneonatal circumcision and to identify the factors influencing decisions that lead to this procedure. A chart review and follow-up telephone survey were done to gather information concerning patients admitted for postneonatal circumcision to two Salt Lake City hospitals during a 2-year period. From the 135 patients eligible for analysis, two distinct groups emerged: the "sick" group (n = 52)—those who had neonatal complications, and the "well" group (n = 83)—those with no neonatal complications. The median age at circumcision was 5.5 months for the boys in the sick group and 35 months for the boys in the well group (P < .001, Student's t test). During the neonatal period, 32% of families in the well group received anticircumcision advice from their primary care physician. The decision in favor of circumcision was made by two thirds of the families of sick infants before their sons were 6 weeks of age. Other surgery was performed concurrent with the circumcision in 44% of patients in the sick group and 24% of patients in the well group (P < .0001, khgr2). Balanitis, phimosis, or a physician's recommendation were listed as the primary reason for postneonatal circumcision by 50% of patents in the well group. Phimosis was listed by the surgeon as an indication for postneonatal circumcision in 65% of all patients's charts, although only 13% of parents listed phimosis as an indication for their children's circumcision. According to this profile of two distinct populations of postneonatal circumcision patients, pediatricians may be able to reduce the incidence of this procedure by providing support of individual preferences and objective information regarding circumcision to families of healthy infants during the neonatal period; by anticipating and facilitating the decisions surrounding neonatal circumcision for families of sick infants; and by educating families of uncircumcised boys about foreskin care and development during regular well-child visits.

Key Words: circumcision • newborn • phimosis

Submitted on June 15, 1989
Accepted on July 26, 1989




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Arch. Dis. Child.Home page
E. J Schoen; and R. HITCHCOCK
Benefits of newborn circumcision: is Europe ignoring medical evidence? • Commentary
Arch. Dis. Child., September 1, 1997; 77(3): 258 - 260.
[Full Text]