02-14-2010, 02:43 PM
|
  |
  |
|
Host
|
|
Joined on: Nov 2004
Location: montana
Messages: 1,525
|
|
  |
|
A urologist view on circumcision
In re: the reality and incidence of botched circumcisions, here is an excerpt from a comment by DC pediatric urologist David Gibbons on an online circumcision discussion posted in October (I believe) at Men's Health Magazine entitled The Debate Over Circumcision: Should All Males Be Circumcised? in the comments section ( Men's Health Magazine : Men's Guide to Fitness, Health, Weight Loss, Nutrition, Sex, Style and Guy Wisdom)
"In my practice, as a pediatric urologist, I manage the complications of neonatal circumcision. For example, in a two year period, I was referred >275 newborns and toddlers with complications of neonatal circumcision. None of these were 'revisions' because of appearance, which I do not do. 45% required corrective surgery (minor as well as major, especially for amputative injury), whereupon some could be treated locally without surgery. Complications of this unnecessary procedure are often not reported, but of 300 pediatric urologists in this country who have practices similar to mine...well, one can do the math, to understand the scope of this problem...."
Here are my rough calculations from his numbers: 275 kids for this one pediatric urologist over 2 years is 137 per year, times 300 pediatric urologists in the country with similar practices is 41,100 boys per year with serious enough circumcision complications to be seen by a pediatric urologist. Out of 1.2 million US circumcisions a year (roughly 60% of 2 million boys born a year), this is 3.4% being referred to pediatric urologists for circ complications. If 45% of these need some kind of corrective surgery, this would be 1.5% of all circumcisions per year needing some kind of corrective surgery. Sorry if my math is off, but certainly this is the same ballpark as the statement by the Canadian Pediatric Society of 1/100 needing some kind of repeat surgery.
|
|
[/url]
Threaded Mode
