Effect Of Circumcision For The Prevention Of Recurrent Urinary Tract Infection

Year 2003, Volume: 4 Issue: 2, 19 - 22, 01.08.2003

Mesut Yazıcı Barlas Etensel Ferah Sönmez Sezen Özkısacık Berna Gültekin Neriman Aydın

Abstract

Objective: Urinary tract infection (UTI) is an important problem of childhood and if left untreated, the microorganisms may migrate from the lower urinary system to upper levels, leading to chronic renal failure. A UTI source of considerable importance is preputial skin. This study was performed to identify the role of circumcision on prevention of recurrent UTI. Method: Study group consisted of uncircumcised male children diagnosed as recurrent UTI. Following diagnostic tests such as ultrasonography, voiding cystourethrography, intravenous pyelography and DMSA, circumcision was performed. Postcircumcision evaluation was made by urine culture. Results: Total number of patients in our study group was 12 with a mean age of 2.4 years. Urine cultures before circumcision revealed microorganisms such as E. Coli, Pseudomonas, Proteus, Staphylococcus, Enterococcus, Klebsiella and Salmonella species. None of the urine cultures revealed a microbial growth in patients at the postcircumcision period. Conclusion: In uncircumcised children with recurrent urinary tract infections, the carrier state of preputial skin must be investigated, and circumcision must be accounted for as a step of treatment procedure.

Keywords

child, urinary tract infection, circumcision

References

• 1. To T, Agha M, Dick PT, Feldman W. Cohort study on circumcision of newborn boys and subsequentrisk of urinary-tract infection. Lancet 1998; 352: 1813-6.
• 2. Kayaba H, Tamuta H, Kitajima S, Fujiwara Y, Kato T, Kato T.Analysis of shape and retractibility of the prepuce in 603 Japanese boys. J Urol 1996; 156: 1813-5.
• 3. Niku SD, Stock JA, Kaplan GW. Neonatal Circumcision. Urol Clin North Am 1995; 22: 57-65.
• 4. Circumcision policy statement. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on Circumcision. Pediatr 1999; 103: 686-93.
• 5. Roberts KB, Akintemi OB. The epidemiology and clinical presentation of urinary tract infection in children younger than 2 years of age. Pediatr Ann 1999; 28: 644-9.
• 6. Sönmez F, Yazýcý M, Aydýn N, Eyigör M, Ünivar T, Ýnan G, Gürel M. Possible asymptomatic carrier of Salmonella typhimurium in the prepitium: a case report. Turk J Pediatr 2001; 43: 76-8.
• 7. Linshaw MA. Controversies in childhood urinary tract infections. World J Urol 1999; 17: 383-95.
• 8. Herndon CD, McKenna PH, Kolon TF, Gonzales ET, Baker LA,Docimo SG. A multicenter outcomes analysis of patients with neonatal reflux presenting with prenatal hydronephrosis. J Urol 1999; 162: 1203-08
• 9. Wijesinha SS, Atkins BL, Dudley NE, Tam PKH. Does circumcision alter the periurethral bacterial flora. Pediatr Surg Int 1998; 13: 146-8
• 10. Updegrove KK. An evidence-based approach to male circumcision: What do we know? J Midwifery& Women's Health 2001; 46: 415-22.
• 11. Roberts JA.. Does circumcision prevent urinary tract infection?. J Urol 1986; 135: 991-2.
• 12. Schoen EJ, Colby CJ, Ray GT. Newborn circumcision decreases incidence and costs of urinary tract infections during the first year of life. Pediatr 2000; 105: 789-93.
• 13. Amir J, Ginzburg M, Straussberg R,Varsano I. The reability of mid-stream urine culture from circumcised male infants. Am J Dis Child 1993; 147: 969-70.
• 14. Cason DL, Carter BS, Bhatia J. Can circumcision prevent recurrent urinary tract infections in hospitalized infants?. Clin Pediatr 2000; 39: 699-03.
• 15. Cascio S, Colhoun E, Puri P. Bacterial colonization of the prepuce in boys with vesicoureteral reflux who receive antibiotic prophylaxis. J Pediatr 2001; 139: 160-2.
• 16. Rushton HG, Majd M. Pyelonephritis in male infants: How important is the foreskin. J Urol 1992; 148: 733-6.
• 17. Wiswell TE. The prepuce, urinary tract infections and the consequences. Pediatr 2000; 105: 860-2.