-
Cureus Feb 2024Contrasting ethical and legal arguments have been made concerning neonatal male circumcision (NMC) that merit the first systematic review on this topic. We performed... (Review)
Review
Contrasting ethical and legal arguments have been made concerning neonatal male circumcision (NMC) that merit the first systematic review on this topic. We performed PRISMA-compliant keyword searches of PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, LexisNexis, and other databases and identified 61 articles that met the inclusion criteria. In the bibliographies of these articles, we identified 58 more relevant articles and 28 internet items. We found high-quality evidence that NMC is a low-risk procedure that provides immediate and lifetime medical and health benefits and only rarely leads to later adverse effects on sexual function or pleasure. Given this evidence, we conclude that discouraging or denying NMC is unethical from the perspective of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which emphasizes the right to health. Further, case law supports the legality of NMC. We found, conversely, that the ethical arguments against NMC rely on distortions of the medical evidence. Thus, NMC, by experienced operators using available safety precautions, appears to be both legal and ethical. Consistent with this conclusion, all of the evidence-based pediatric policies that we reviewed describe NMC as low-risk and beneficial to public health. We calculated that a reduction in NMC in the United States from 80% to 10% would substantially increase the cases of adverse medical conditions. The present findings thus support the evidence-based NMC policy statements and are inconsistent with the non-evidence-based policies that discourage NMC. On balance, the arguments and evidence reviewed here indicate that NMC is a medically beneficial and ethical public health intervention early in life because it reduces suffering, deaths, cases, and costs of treating adverse medical conditions throughout the lifetimes of circumcised individuals.
PubMed: 38405642
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.54772 -
Pediatric Dermatology May 2022Studies concerning pediatric lichen sclerosus are limited, and, to date, there have been no studies comparing the course of lichen sclerosus in boys and girls. We sought...
BACKGROUND
Studies concerning pediatric lichen sclerosus are limited, and, to date, there have been no studies comparing the course of lichen sclerosus in boys and girls. We sought to examine all publications on boys and girls with lichen sclerosus and assess and compare epidemiology, symptoms and signs, genetic background, risk factors, treatment, and prognosis.
METHODS
A systematic search was performed in the Embase, Medline, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases. Inclusion criteria were information on children ages 0-18 years and a clinical or histologic diagnosis of lichen sclerosus. Literature from 1985 to 2021 was reviewed.
RESULTS
A total of 1780 articles were retrieved from the search, of which 90 articles were eligible for inclusion. Boys and girls present similarly on many aspects; nonetheless, treatment and follow-up are approached differently.
CONCLUSIONS
Though the clinical approach is often different, lichen sclerosus in boys and girls demonstrates many similarities. More research is needed, especially on follow-up, to gain a better understanding of the course of lichen sclerosus and establish an advanced management plan for children.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Child, Preschool; Female; Genetic Background; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Lichen Sclerosus et Atrophicus; Male; Prognosis; Risk Factors
PubMed: 35229894
DOI: 10.1111/pde.14967 -
Impact of Sexual Activity on the Risk of Male Genital Tumors: A Systematic Review of the Literature.International Journal of Environmental... Aug 2021Most cancers are related to lifestyle and environmental risk factors, including smoking, alcohol consumption, dietary habits, and environment (occupational exposures). A... (Review)
Review
Most cancers are related to lifestyle and environmental risk factors, including smoking, alcohol consumption, dietary habits, and environment (occupational exposures). A growing interest in the association between sexual activity (SA) and the development of different types of tumors in both men and women has been recorded in recent years. The aim of the present systematic review is to describe and critically discuss the current evidence regarding the association between SA and male genital cancers (prostatic, penile, and testicular), and to analyze the different theories and biological mechanisms reported in the literature. A comprehensive bibliographic search in the MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was performed in July 2021. Papers in the English language without chronological restrictions were selected. Retrospective and prospective primary clinical studies, in addition to previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses, were included. A total of 19 studies, including 953,704 patients were selected. Case reports, conference abstracts, and editorial comments were excluded. Men with more than 20 sexual partners in their lifetime, and those reporting more than 21 ejaculations per month, reported a decreased risk of overall and less aggressive prostate cancer (PCa). About 40% of penile cancers (PCs) were HPV-associated, with HPV 16 being the dominant genotype. Data regarding the risk of HPV in circumcised patients are conflicting, although circumcision appears to have a protective role against PC. Viral infections and epididymo-orchitis are among the main sex-related risk factors studied for testicular cancer (TC); however, data in the literature are limited. Testicular trauma can allow the identification of pre-existing TC. SA is closely associated with the development of PC through high-risk HPV transmission; in this context, phimosis appears to be a favoring factor. Sexual behaviors appear to play a significant role in PCa pathogenesis, probably through inflammatory mechanisms; however, protective sexual habits have also been described. A direct correlation between SA and TC has not yet been proven, although infections remain the most studied sex-related factor.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies; Risk Factors; Sexual Behavior; Sexual Partners; Testicular Neoplasms
PubMed: 34444249
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18168500 -
Circumcision devices versus standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult male circumcisions.The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2021Medical circumcisions are among the most common surgical procedures performed in males. The usual indications are phimosis (inability to completely retract the foreskin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Medical circumcisions are among the most common surgical procedures performed in males. The usual indications are phimosis (inability to completely retract the foreskin and expose the glans due to a congenital or acquired constriction of the prepuce), paraphimosis (when the foreskin is not pulled back over the glans after retraction resulting in a tight constricting band which causes swelling of the distal penis and acute discomfort), balanoposthitis (erythema and edema of the prepuce and glans) and balanitis (inflammation is confined to the glans; the foreskin is usually non-retractile). Circumcision devices have been developed to shorten the operative time, simplify techniques, and improve safety and cosmetic outcomes. The devices generally aim to crush the foreskin while simultaneously creating hemostasis, the foreskin is then excised or allowed to slough off. Their use is supposedly safer and easier to replicate than the standard dissection techniques. There are at least 20 devices for male circumcision on the market, yet their effectiveness has not been reviewed to date.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of device-based circumcisions compared with standard surgical techniques in adolescent and adult males (10 years old and above).
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive search with no restrictions to the language of publication or publication status. We searched the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, trials registries, grey literature sources and conference proceedings up to 16 April 2020.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials of device-based circumcisions (crush or ligature circumcision devices) compared to standard surgical dissection-based circumcision conducted by health professionals in a medical setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data from the included studies. We classified adverse events into serious, moderate or mild. We reported study results as risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) using 95% confidence intervals (CI) and a random-effects model. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
Eighteen trials met the inclusion criteria. Trials were conducted in China, South Africa, Kenya and Zambia, Mozambique, Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe. Primary outcomes Serious adverse events: there were no serious adverse events in either treatment arm (11 trials, 3472 participants). Moderate adverse events: there may be a slight increase in moderate adverse events when devices are used compared to standard surgical techniques (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.10; I²= 68%; 10 trials, 3370 participants; low-certainty evidence); this corresponds to 8 more (ranging from 15 fewer to 84 more) moderate adverse events per 1000 participants. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for study limitations and imprecision. Secondary outcomes Mild adverse events: we are uncertain about the difference in mild adverse events between groups when devices are used compared to standard surgical techniques (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.44 to 2.72; I² = 91%; 10 trials, 3370 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for study limitations, imprecision and unexplained inconsistency. Operative time: operative time is probably about 17 minutes shorter when using a device rather than standard surgical techniques, which constitutes a clinically meaningful decrease in a procedure (MD -17.26 minutes, 95% CI -19.96 to -14.57; I² = 99%; 14 trials, 4812 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for serious study limitations. The standard surgical technique generally takes about 24 minutes. There may be less postoperative pain during the first 24 hours when circumcision devices are used compared to standard surgical techniques (measured using a visual analog scale [VAS]; MD 1.30 cm lower, 95% CI 2.37 lower to 0.22 lower; I² = 99%; 9 trials, 3022 participants; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for study limitations and unexplained heterogeneity. There may be little or no difference in postoperative pain experienced during the first seven days when compared with standard surgical techniques (measured using a VAS; MD 0.11 cm higher, 95% CI 0.89 lower to 1.11 higher; I² = 94%; 4 trials, 1430 participants; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for study limitations and unexplained inconsistency. A higher score on the VAS indicates greater pain. Participants may slightly prefer circumcision devices compared to standard surgical techniques (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.37; I² = 97%; 15 trials, 4501 participants; low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for study limitations and unexplained inconsistency. We recorded satisfaction as a dichotomous outcome. Higher rates reflected greater satisfaction.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found that there were no serious adverse events reported when using a circumcision device compared to standard surgical techniques, but they may slightly increase moderate adverse effects, and it is unclear whether there is a difference in mild adverse effects. Use of circumcision devices probably reduces the time of the procedure by about 17 minutes, a clinically meaningful time saving. For patients, use of the circumcision device may result in lower pain scores during the first 24 hours and patients may be slightly more satisfied with it compared with standard surgical techniques. Clinicians, patients and policymakers can use these results in conjunction with their own contextual factors to inform the approach that best suits their healthcare settings. High-quality trials evaluating this intervention are needed to provide further certainty regarding the rates of adverse effects and postoperative pain of using devices compared to standard approaches.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Bias; Child; Circumcision, Male; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Operative Time; Pain, Postoperative; Patient Preference; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Young Adult
PubMed: 33786810
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012250.pub2