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.

Florida Medicaid will only cover a non-neonatal circumcision if it meets the specified Medicaid medical indications or the patient is 3 years or older and has failed a 6-week trial of topical steroid therapy (TST). Referral of children who do not meet guideline criteria results in unnecessary costs.

We sought to evaluate the cost savings if the initial evaluation and management were performed by the primary care provider (PCP) with referral to a pediatric urologist of only those males meeting the guidelines.

An institutional review board-approved retrospective chart review of all male pediatric patients ≥3 years of age presenting for phimosis/circumcision from September 2016 to September 2019 at our institution was performed. Data extracted included (1) presence of phimosis, (2) presence of medical indication for circumcision on presentation, (3) circumcision performed without meeting criteria, (4) use of topical steroid therapy prior to referral. The population was stratified into 2 groups based on whether criteria were met at the time of referral. Those with a defined medical indication on presentation were excluded from cost analysis. Cost savings were based on costs incurred for PCP visit(s) versus initial referral to a urologist using estimated Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Of the 763 males, 76.1% (581) did not meet Medicaid criteria for circumcision on presentation. Of these, 67 had a retractable foreskin with no medical indication, 514 had phimosis with no documented topical steroid therapy (TST) failure. A savings of $95,704.16 would have been incurred if the PCP initiated the evaluation and management and referred only those who met the criteria (Table 2).

These savings would only be feasible if there were proper education of PCPs in the evaluation of phimosis and the role of TST. Limitations are assuming cost savings in the setting of well-educated pediatricians for clinical exam and believing they are aware of and comply with the guidelines.

Education of PCPs on the role of TST in phimosis and current Medicaid guidelines may reduce unnecessary office visits, health care costs, and family burden. The most impactful method to reduce the cost of non-neonatal circumcision would be for states that do not currently cover neonatal circumcision to acknowledge affirmative policies from the American Academy of Pediatrics regarding circumcision and realize the cost savings associated with providing coverage for neonatal circumcision and reducing significantly the number of more expensive non-neonatal circumcisions.

The aim was (1) to perform an up-to-date systematic review of the male circumcision (MC) literature and (2) to determine the number of adverse medical conditions prevented by early MC in Australia. Searches of PubMed using "circumcision" with 39 keywords and bibliography searches yielded 278 publications meeting our inclusion criteria. Early MC provides immediate and lifetime benefits, including protection against: urinary tract infections, phimosis, inflammatory skin conditions, inferior penile hygiene, candidiasis, various STIs, and penile and prostate cancer. In female partners MC reduces risk of STIs and cervical cancer. A risk-benefit analysis found benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by approximately 200 to 1. It was estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. An increase in early MC in Australia to mid-1950s prevalence of 85% from the current level of 18.75% would avoid 77,000 cases of infections and other adverse medical conditions over the lifetime for each annual birth cohort. Survey data, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation indicate that MC has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity or pleasure. US studies found that early infant MC is cost saving. Evidence-based reviews by the AAP and CDC support early MC as a desirable public health measure. Although MC can be performed at any age, early MC maximizes benefits and minimises procedural risks. Parents should routinely be provided with accurate, up-to-date evidence-based information in an unbiased manner early in a pregnancy so that they have time to weigh benefits and risks of early MC and make an informed decision should they have a son. Parental choice should be respected. A well-trained competent practitioner is essential and local anaesthesia should be routinely used. Third party coverage of costs is advocated.

To evaluate the outcomes of neonatal circumcision performed by a PA in pediatric urology.

A retrospective review was performed of infants evaluated for neonatal circumcision by a single PA in pediatric urology over 30 months. Technique, age and weight at circumcision, presence or absence of genital anomalies, and complications were gathered.

Of the 371 male infants evaluated for neonatal circumcision, 276 underwent the procedure. Complications included retained Plastibell (2.1%), penile adhesions (1.1%), swelling (1.8%), and cosmetic concerns (0.73%). Eighteen unanticipated postprocedure visits occurred-four in the ED and 14 in the outpatient clinic. No acute procedural complications occurred. One patient (0.3%) underwent lysis of penile adhesions at age 19 months.

Neonatal circumcisions are commonly performed by nonsurgeons with variable formal circumcision training. These data support that well-trained PAs can perform neonatal circumcisions with low complication rates.

To determine caregiver-reported reasons for delay of desired neonatal circumcision.

Caregivers requesting elective outpatient circumcision at two urban tertiary care hospitals were surveyed from 1/2017 to 12/2018. Boys >3 years and those with abnormal penile anatomy were excluded. Patient/parent demographics, insurance status, comorbidities, birth history, family history, reasons circumcision was desired, and reasons for circumcision delay were obtained.

Surveys were completed by 206/229 caregivers (90% response rate). Respondents were primarily mothers (74%) who identified as African-American (62%). Eligible boys presented at a median 7.5 months [0.3-35.6] and were predominantly African-American (63%), publicly-insured at birth (83%), and publicly-insured at present (86%). 80% were full-term. 83% had no comorbidities. Most caregivers (84%) requested inpatient circumcision, primarily for penile cleanliness (75%) and infection prevention (72%). Common reasons for delay included neonatal circumcision not being performed by the birth physician/hospital (26%) and prematurity (16%). Publicly-insured boys were more likely to encounter delays related birth physician/hospital not performing circumcisions (P = .02). Non-Caucasian/mixed race boys were less likely to be eligible for circumcision without general anesthesia (P = .004). In 108 cases (52%), circumcision was requested for full-term boys without comorbidities. Of these, 72 (35% of the cohort) now require general anesthesia to undergo circumcision.

Among 206 boys experiencing circumcision delay, most were full-term, African-American, and publicly-insured. Common reasons for delay included neonatal circumcision not being performed by the birth hospital/physician and prematurity. General anesthesia could have been avoided in >35% of boys if circumcision was performed at birth.

To systematically evaluate evidence against male circumcision (MC).

We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE and Cochrane databases.

Database searches retrieved 297 publications for inclusion. Bibliographies of these yielded 101 more. After evaluation we found: Claims that MC carries high risk were contradicted by low frequency of adverse events that were virtually all minor and easily treated with complete resolution. Claims that MC causes psychological harm were contradicted by studies finding no such harm. Claims that MC impairs sexual function and pleasure were contradicted by high-quality studies finding no adverse effect. Claims disputing the medical benefits of MC were contradicted by a large body of high-quality evidence indicating protection against a wide range of infections, dermatological conditions, and genital cancers in males and the female sexual partners of men. Risk-benefit analyses reported that benefits exceed risks by 100-200 to 1. To maximize benefits and minimize risks, the evidence supported early infant MC rather than arguments that the procedure should be delayed until males are old enough to decide for themselves. Claims that MC of minors is unethical were contradicted by balanced evaluations of ethical issues supporting the rights of children to be provided with low-risk, high-benefit interventions such as MC for better health. Expert evaluations of case-law supported the legality of MC of minors. Other data demonstrated that early infant MC is cost-saving to health systems.

Arguments opposing MC are supported mostly by low-quality evidence and opinion, and are contradicted by strong scientific evidence.

To determine whether recent evidence-based United States policies on male circumcision (MC) apply to comparable Anglophone countries, Australia and New Zealand.

Articles in 2005 through 2015 were retrieved from PubMed using the keyword "circumcision" together with 36 relevant subtopics. A further PubMed search was performed for articles published in 2016. Searches of the EMBASE and Cochrane databases did not yield additional citable articles. Articles were assessed for quality and those rated 2+ and above according to the Scottish Intercollegiate Grading System were studied further. The most relevant and representative of the topic were included. Bibliographies were examined to retrieve further key references. Randomized controlled trials, recent high quality systematic reviews or meta-analyses (level 1++ or 1+ evidence) were prioritized for inclusion. A risk-benefit analysis of articles rated for quality was performed. For efficiency and reliability, recent randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, high quality systematic reviews and large well-designed studies were used if available. Internet searches were conducted for other relevant information, including policies and Australian data on claims under Medicare for MC.

Evidence-based policy statements by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) support infant and later age male circumcision (MC) as a desirable public health measure. Our systematic review of relevant literature over the past decade yielded 140 journal articles that met our inclusion criteria. Together, these showed that early infant MC confers immediate and lifelong benefits by protecting against urinary tract infections having potential adverse long-term renal effects, phimosis that causes difficult and painful erections and "ballooning" during urination, inflammatory skin conditions, inferior penile hygiene, candidiasis, various sexually transmissible infections in both sexes, genital ulcers, and penile, prostate and cervical cancer. Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggested that MC has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity or pleasure. United States studies showed that early infant MC is cost saving. The evidence supporting early infant MC has further strengthened since the positive AAP and CDC reviews.

Affirmative MC policies are needed in Australia and New Zealand. Routine provision of accurate, unbiased education, and access in public hospitals, will maximize health and financial benefits.

Newborn male circumcision is a minor surgical procedure that has generated significant controversy. Accumulating evidence supports significant health benefits, most notably reductions in urinary tract infections, acquisition of HIV and a number of other sexually transmitted infections, penile cancer, phimosis, paraphimosis, balanitis and lichen sclerosis. While circumcision, like any surgical procedure, has risks for complications, they occur in less than 1 in 500 infants circumcised and most are minor and require minimal intervention. The CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) believe that health benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks. For this reason, the AAP believes that parents should be allowed to make the decision concerning circumcision of their male infants after receiving non-biased information on health risks and health benefits.

The objective of this review was to assess the trend in the US male circumcision rate and the impact that the affirmative 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement might have on neonatal circumcision practice. We searched PubMed for the term circumcision to retrieve relevant articles. This review was prompted by a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that found a slight increase, from 79% to 81%, in the prevalence of circumcision in males aged 14 to 59 years during the past decade. There were racial and ethnic disparities, with prevalence rising to 91% in white, 76% in black, and 44% in Hispanic males. Because data on neonatal circumcision are equivocal, we undertook a critical analysis of hospital discharge data. After correction for underreporting, we found that the percentage had declined from 83% in the 1960s to 77% by 2010. A risk-benefit analysis of conditions that neonatal circumcision protects against revealed that benefits exceed risks by at least 100 to 1 and that over their lifetime, half of uncircumcised males will require treatment for a medical condition associated with retention of the foreskin. Other analyses show that neonatal male circumcision is cost-effective for disease prevention. The benefits of circumcision begin in the neonatal period by protection against infections that can damage the pediatric kidney. Given the substantial risk of adverse conditions and disease, some argue that failure to circumcise a baby boy may be unethical because it diminishes his right to good health. There is no long-term adverse effect of neonatal circumcision on sexual function or pleasure. The affirmative 2012 American Academy of Pediatrics policy supports parental education about, access to, and insurance and Medicaid coverage for elective infant circumcision. As with vaccination, circumcision of newborn boys should be part of public health policies. Campaigns should prioritize population subgroups with lower circumcision prevalence and a higher burden of diseases that can be ameliorated by circumcision.

Circumcision remains a controversial operation. Most procedures are performed in the neonatal period and avoid general anesthesia. Legislation driven by policy statements from the American Academy of Pediatrics led to significant changes in circumcisions in Florida with a shift to nonneonatal procedures as a result of costs. We sought to study the prevalence and financial implications of nonneonatal circumcisions in Florida. A retrospective population study was performed using the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration outpatient procedure database. We queried for patients 0 to 17 years of age undergoing circumcision between 2003 and 2008. Demographics, charges, and insurance status were analyzed. From 2003 to 2008, 31,741 outpatient circumcisions were performed. Publicly funded circumcisions accounted for 17,537 charging the state $6,263 on average for each circumcision at an expense of $111.8 million for the 5-year time period analyzed. Publicly funded circumcision procedures increased more than sixfold (P < 0.0001) than those covered by private insurance. Black circumcision procedures increased 77.3 per cent, whereas white circumcisions increased 28.7 per cent. There has been a significant increase in the number of nonneonatal circumcisions performed. This has resulted in an increase in economic health care. Public funding of neonatal circumcision could result in significant cost savings and avoid potential complications of general anesthesia.

Recent attempts in the USA and Europe to ban the circumcision of male children have been unsuccessful. Of current concern is a report by the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute (TLRI) recommending that non-therapeutic circumcision be prohibited, with parents and doctors risking criminal sanctions except where the parents have strong religious and ethnic ties to circumcision. The acceptance of this recommendation would create a precedent for legislation elsewhere in the world, thereby posing a threat to pediatric practice, parental responsibilities and freedoms, and public health.

The TLRI report ignores the scientific consensus within medical literature about circumcision. It contains legal and ethical arguments that are seriously flawed. Dispassionate ethical arguments and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child are consistent with parents being permitted to authorize circumcision for their male child. Uncritical acceptance of the TLRI report's recommendations would strengthen and legitimize efforts to ban childhood male circumcision not just in Australia, but in other countries as well. The medical profession should be concerned about any attempt to criminalize a well-accepted and evidence-based medical procedure. The recommendations are illogical, pose potential dangers and seem unworkable in practice. There is no explanation of how the State could impose criminal charges against doctors and parents, nor of how such a punitive apparatus could be structured, nor how strength of ethnic or religious ties could be determined. The proposal could easily be used inappropriately, and discriminates against parents not tied to the religions specified. With time, religious exemptions could subsequently be overturned. The law, governments and the medical profession should reject the TLRI recommendations, especially since the recent affirmative infant male circumcision policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics attests to the significant individual and public health benefits and low risk of infant male circumcision.

Doctors should be allowed to perform medical procedures based on sound evidence of effectiveness and safety with guaranteed protection. Parents should be free to act in the best interests of the health of their infant son by having him circumcised should they choose.