Does circumcision change uroflowmetry parameters?

Year 2020, Volume: 6 Issue: 4, 283 - 286, 04.07.2020

Serpil Sancar , Elif Kırlı

https://doi.org/10.18621/eurj.711835

Abstract

Objectives: The benefits of circumcision, which is one of the most frequently performed surgical procedures, are controversial. In our study, before and after circumcision, uroflowmetry parameters were compared to evaluate the effects of circumcision on voiding.

Methods: Children between the ages of 5-15 years who applied to the outpatient clinic for voluntary circumcision and who did not have underlying diseases and voiding problems were included in the study. Circumcision was performed by specialist in sterile conditions under general anesthesia. Uroflowmetry was evaluated by voiding volume, voiding time, maximum flow rate, average flow rate, shape of the curve. The pre-circumcision and post-circumcision uroflowmetry results were compared statistically.

Results: Fifty patients with a median age of seven years (range: 5-10 years) were included in the study. When uroflow parameters were compared in our study, the maximum flow rate, mean flow rate and the time to maximum flow rate were found significantly different (p < 0.05). The plateau pattern was detected in 30% of patients before circumcision, while in 8% of patients after circumcision.

Conclusions: Circumcision performed by specialists under sterile conditions has positive effects on uroflow parameters. 

Keywords

Male circumcision, uroflowmetry, children

References

• 1. WHO/UNAIDS: New data on male circumcision and HIV prevention: Policy and programme implications: conclusions and recommendations. UNAIDS 2007.
• 2. Gray RH, Kigozi G, Serwadda D, Makumbi F, Watya S, Nalugoda F, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in men in Rakai, Uganda: a randomised trial. Lancet 2007;369:657-66.
• 3. Bailey RC, Moses S, Parker CB, Agot K, Maclean I, Krieger JN, et al. Male circumcision for HIV prevention in young men in Kisumu, Kenya: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2007;369:643-56.
• 4. Weiss HA, Larke N, Halperin D, Schenker I. Complications of circumcision in male neonates, infants and children: a systematic review. BMC Urol 2010;10:2.
• 5. Nørgaard JP, Van Gool JD, Hjälmås K, Djurhuus JC, Hellström AL. Standardization and definitions in lower urinary tract dysfunction in children. Br J Urol 1998;81 Suppl 3:1-16.
• 6. Hjälmås K. Urodynamics in normal infants and children. Scand J Urol Nephrol Suppl 1988;114:20-7.
• 7. Nevéus T, von Gontard A, Hoebeke P, Hjälmås K, Bauer S, Bower W, et al. The standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function in children and adolescents: report from the Standardisation Committee of the International Children's Continence Society. J Urol 2006;176:314‐24.
• 8. Austin PF, Bauer SB, Bower W, Chase J, Franco I, Hoebeke P, et al. The standardization of terminology of lower urinary tract function in children and adolescents: update report from the Standardization Committee of the International Children's Continence Society. Neurourol Urodyn 2016;35:471-81.
• 9. WHO/UNAIDS: Male circumcision: global trends and determinants of prevalence, safety and acceptability. World Health Organization 2008.
• 10. Osuigwe A, Ikechebelu J, Okafor P: Circumcision-related complications in the male: experience amongst the Igbo’s of Southeast Nigeria. Afr J Urol 2004;10:246-51.
• 11. Segura CG. Urine flow in childhood: a study of flow chart parameters based on 1,361 uroflowmetry tests. J Urol 1997;157:1426-8.
• 12. Joudi M, Fathi M, Hiradfar M. Incidence of asymptomatic meatal stenosis in children following neonatal circumcision. J Pediatr Urol 2011;7:526-8.
• 13. Van Howe RS. Incidence of meatal stenosis following neonatal circumcision in a primary care setting. Clin Pediatr (Phila.) 2006;45:49-54.