The relationship between obesity and complications after neonatal circumcision
- PMID: 21862040
- DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.04.016
The relationship between obesity and complications after neonatal circumcision
Abstract
Purpose: Penile adhesions with hidden penis and penile skin bridges are complications after neonatal circumcision that seem to develop more often in overweight children. They could possibly be avoided if there were neonatal parameters predicting circumcision complications. We hypothesized that penile adhesions with hidden penis and skin bridges may be predicted by the height and weight of a newborn.
Materials and methods: We performed an institutional review board approved case-control study. Boys younger than 5 years who presented for evaluation of penile adhesions with hidden penis and/or penile skin bridges after newborn circumcision were compared to boys of the same age who were circumcised at birth and did not have penile adhesions with hidden penis and/or skin bridges when evaluated for cryptorchidism or hernia/hydrocele. Weight for length percentiles were compared at birth and at urological evaluation.
Results: We evaluated 51 patients with penile adhesions and hidden penis after newborn circumcision, and compared them to 33 age matched controls. Boys with hidden penis had a statistically higher weight for length percentile at birth and at urological evaluation. However, in boys with penile skin bridges there was no statistical difference in the weight for length percentile at either time.
Conclusions: An increased weight for length percentile in male infants before and after circumcision may be associated with penile adhesions with hidden penis but not penile skin bridges. These parameters should be considered before newborn circumcision when counseling parents, and after circumcision since early recognition of obesity might indicate the need for diligent genital hygiene to try to prevent post-circumcision complications.
Copyright © 2011 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Comment in
-
Editorial comment.J Urol. 2011 Oct;186(4 Suppl):1641. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2011.04.130. J Urol. 2011. PMID: 21862039 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Penile adhesions after neonatal circumcision.J Urol. 2000 Aug;164(2):495-6. J Urol. 2000. PMID: 10893633
-
Penile skin bridges: causes and prevention.Int Surg. 2009 Jan-Feb;94(1):35-7. Int Surg. 2009. PMID: 20099424
-
Male circumcision.Pediatrics. 2012 Sep;130(3):e756-85. doi: 10.1542/peds.2012-1990. Epub 2012 Aug 27. Pediatrics. 2012. PMID: 22926175
-
Neonatal circumcision.Pediatr Clin North Am. 2001 Dec;48(6):1539-57. doi: 10.1016/s0031-3955(05)70390-4. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2001. PMID: 11732129 Review.
-
Neonatal circumcision revisited. Fetus and Newborn Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society.CMAJ. 1996 Mar 15;154(6):769-80. CMAJ. 1996. PMID: 8634956 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Canadian Urological Association guideline on the care of the normal foreskin and neonatal circumcision in Canadian infants (full version).Can Urol Assoc J. 2018 Feb;12(2):E76-E99. doi: 10.5489/cuaj.5033. Epub 2017 Dec 1. Can Urol Assoc J. 2018. PMID: 29381458 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Spectrum and the management of glanular-preputial adhesions after ritual male circumcision.BMC Urol. 2024 Dec 23;24(1):283. doi: 10.1186/s12894-024-01672-9. BMC Urol. 2024. PMID: 39716167 Free PMC article.
-
Systematic review of complications arising from male circumcision.BJUI Compass. 2021 Nov 11;3(2):99-123. doi: 10.1002/bco2.123. eCollection 2022 Mar. BJUI Compass. 2021. PMID: 35474726 Free PMC article. Review.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical