|
| Under 1 Year | 1-4 Years | Total, Under 5 Years | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1942 | 12 | 4 | 16 |
| 1943 | 10 | 7 | 17 |
| 1944 | 10 | 6 | 16 |
| 1945 | 15 | 2 | 17 |
| 1946 | 16 | 3 | 19 |
| 1947 | 9 | 1 | 10 |
About 16 deaths in children under 5 years occur each year from circumcision. In most of the fatalities which have come to my notice death has occurred for no apparent reason under anaesthesia, but haemorrhage and infection have sometimes proved fatal.
Haemorrhage is not uncommon after circumcision. F. J. W. Miller and S. D. Court (1949, personal communication), who followed 1,000 infants in Newcastle-upon-Tyne for their first year, found that 58 were circumcised, and two of these bled sufficiently to require blood transfusion. In my own experience about two out of every 100 children circumcised as hospital out-patients will be admitted on account of haemorrhage or other untoward event. Blood losses in the first year are particularly apt to lead to anaemia, and several infants have been seen with severe iron-deficiency anaemia following haemorrhages after circumcision.
Reference has already been made to meatal ulcer, which, in so far as it is so much more frequent in circumcised male infants, should be counted a sequel of the operation.
The surprising variety of reasons why different doctors advise circumcision and other operations and manipulations on the prepuce can be found described in the long correspondence on the subject which ran in the British Medical Journal from August to November, 1935. Circumcision is sometimes undertaken in order to cure existing pathological conditions, sometimes in order to prevent various diseases from occurring at a much later date.
Since in the newborn infant the prepuce is nearly always non-retractable, remaining so generally for much of the first year at least, and since this normal non-retractability is not due to tightness of the prepuce relative to the glans but to incomplete separation of these two structures, it follows that phimosis (which implies a pathological constriction of the prepuce) cannot properly be applied to the infant. Further, the commonly performed manipulation known as "stretching the foreskin" by forcibly opening sinus forceps inserted in the preputial orifice cannot be justified on anatomical grounds, besides being painful and traumatizing. In spite of the fact that the preputial orifice often appears minute - the so-called pin-hole meatus - its effective lumen, when tested by noting whether or not a good stream of urine is passed, is almost invariably found to be adequate.
Infants with umbilical or inguinal hernia are particularly liable to suffer circumcision on account of "phimosis," but if this simple test is applied, rarely will any obstruction to the urinary flow be found present. Occasionally the preputial orifice is imperfectly related to the external meatus, so that the urinary stream balloons out the subpreputial space; this can be easily remedied by gently separating the prepuce from the glans in the region of the meatus by means of a probe. True phimosis causing urinary obstruction has been described (Campbell, l948), but must be exceedingly rare: in the cases I have seen in which this diagnosis has been made, simple separation of the prepuce has shown that there was no constriction of the preputial tributable to operation rather than to any pathological orifice.
Through ignorance of the anatomy of the prepuce in infancy, mothers and nurses are often instructed to draw the child's foreskin back regularly, on the supposition that stretching of the foreskin is what is required. I have on three occasions seen young boys with a paraphimosis caused by mothers or nurses who have obediently carried out such instructions; for, although the size of the prepuce does allow the glans to be delivered, the fit is often a close one and slight swelling of the glans, such as may result from forceful efforts at retraction, may make its reduction difficult.
Inflammation of the glans is uncommon in childhood when the prepuce is performing its protective function. Posthitis - inflammation of the prepuce - is commoner, and it occurs in two forms. One form is a cellulitis of the prepuce; this responds well to chemotherapy and does not seem to have any tendency to recur; hence it is questionable whether circumcision is indicated. More often inflammation of the prepuce is part of an ammonia dermatitis affecting the napkin area. The nature of this condition was firmly established by Cooke in 1921, bit is still not universally known. The urea-splitting Bact. ammoniagenes (derived from faecal flora) acts upon the urea in the urine and liberates ammonia. This irritates the skin, which becomes peculiarly thickened, while superficial desquamation produces a silvery sheen on the skin as if it were covered with a film of tissue paper. Such appearances are diagnostic of ammonia dermatitis, and inquiry will confirm that the napkins, particularly those left on through the longer night interval, smell powerfully of ammonia. Treatment consists in impregnating the napkins with a mild antiseptic inhibiting the growth of the urea-splitting organisms. For this purpose boric acid powder sprinkled over the napkins, or a rinse of 1 in 4,000 mercuric chloride or of the recently introduced non-toxic substance "diaparene" (Benson et al., 1949), are gratifyingly effective.
When involved in an ammonia dermatitis the prepuce shows the characteristic thickening of the skin, and this is often labelled a "redundant prepuce" - another misnomer which may serve as a reason for circumcision. The importance of recognizing ammonia dermatitis lies in the danger that if circumcision is performed the delicate glans, deprived of its proper protection, is particularly apt to share in the inflammation and to develop a meatal ulcer. Once formed, a meatal ulcer is often most difficult to cure.
A number of symptoms of obscure cause, such as enuresis, masturbation, habit spasm, night terrors, or even convulsions, have from time to time been attributed to phimosis, and circumcision has been advised. No evidence exists that a prepuce whose only fault is that it has not yet developed retractability can cause such symptoms.
It may be apposite at this stage to quote the reasons given by the mother for desiring her child's circumcision in a series of 54 infants referred to hospital by a doctor. In 39 infants the reason was a symptomless "phimosis" found on routine inspection by doctor, nurse, mother, or neighbour. In nine cases it was said that "he cries when he wets": five of these proved to be due to ammonia dermatitis; closer questioning of the others revealed either no connexion between when the baby cried and when he urinated, or merely that crying often started micturition. In these three cases the foreskin was judged to be too long or redundant, and in a further three the reason was even more frankly cosmetic ("it looks funny") or was intangible ("we believe in it"). As has been stated earlier, in all except one of this group of 54 infants, phimosis was disproved, in so far as gentle manipulation enabled the prepuce to be retracted.
Universal circumcision of male infants has been urged as a means of preventing the later development of a variety of conditions - paraphimosis, venereal diseases, penile cancer, and cervical cancer of women.
Some idea of the importance of paraphimosis can be gained from figures from the royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, a hospital serving a large population in which, as has been mentioned, infants are circumcised less often than in the country generally. In the children's wards paraphimosis accounts for about seven out of a total of 800 male child admissions each year (0.9%); an appreciable number of these are found to be the result of the mother's obeying misguided instructions to retract her infant's prepuce forcibly. In the adult wards it accounts for about 10 out of a total of 5,000 male surgical admissions (0.1%), so that paraphimosis scarcely constitutes an important hazard to the uncircumcised male.
Although there is a common belief that the circumcised man runs a lessened risk of venereal infection, particularly syphilitic, there are few figures to support this. Lloyd and Lloyd (1934), who reviewed the published evidence and analysed their own figures, concluded that circumcision did not diminish the chance of a syphilitic chancre. Schrek and Lenowitz (1947) found that hospital patients gave a history of venereal disease equally often whether circumcised or not. Wilson (1947) has published figures showing that, of the men attending a Canadian Army venereal disease centre, the proportion of uncircumcised solders (77%) was higher than in the Canadian Army generally (52%), and concluded that the uncircumcised soldier is more prone to venereal infection. It may be, however, that since circumcision of infants is de rigueur in Canada, the uncircumcised man will tend to come from a lower social grade and thus to be more likely to expose himself to infection. The evidence seems scarcely to warrant universal circumcision as a prophylactic against venereal infection.
This subject merits careful appraisal, for it alone, of the medical reasons commonly advanced for the universal circumcision of infants is capable of withstanding critical scrutiny. In England and Wales deaths from penile cancer number about 150 a year. The relation between this disease and antecedent circumcision has recently been reviewed by Kennaway (1947). All observers agree that circumcision in the first five years of life protects absolutely from penile cancer, and this applies not only to one group such as the Jewish but equally to the mixed races of the U.S.A. The reason for this preventive effect of early circumcision is not known: it is not due to removal of the cancer-bearing area since the usual site of penile cancer, the sulcus behind the glans, is retained. If it is due to retained smegma or its decomposition products being carcinogenic, this effect must be of startling potency, since circumcision after the fifth year fails to prevent cancer occurring several decades later.
A clue to the problem may lie in the exceptionally low hygienic standards of patients with penile cancer, which has struck several observers. Dean (1935), reviewing 120 cases, writes: "Men with penis cancers gave the impression of being less intelligent, as a class, than other cancer patients. Not only had the majority ignored for long periods the precancerous state of physical annoyance, filth, and odoriferous discharges, but also it was not unusual for many to delay seeking advice until a large part of the penis bad become affected with an ulcerating growth." The unusual frequency with which patients with penile cancer have had venereal disease has been demonstrated by Dean (1935) and by Schrek and Lenowitz (1947), these authors having come to the conclusion that this fact indicates again the significantly low standard of social hygiene of these patients. A further factor frequently present in patients with penile cancer is phimosis; although this is often the result of the growth, in many patients the prepuce has never been retractable (Lewis, 1931).
With these facts it may reasonably be contended that, if the uncircumcised male has a prepuce which he can retract and which he keeps clean, he is likely to enjoy the same immunity from penile cancer as his circumcised brother.
The low incidence of cervical cancer among Jewesses has led Handley (1947) to the conclusion that this disease is mainly caused by the introduction of irritant material by the uncircumcised husband during coitus. It should be a simple matter to put this theory to the test by noting whether the husbands of women with cervical cancer are more frequently uncircumcised than others. Meanwhile the evidence seems insufficient to warrant universal circumcision or preputiotomy, such as Handley advocates.
There remain a number of more or less trivial factors which are sometimes mentioned as reasons why infant circumcision is desirable: difficulties in keeping the uncircumcised parts clean, or the supposed aesthetic or erotic superiority of the shorn member. In order to fulfil the intention of this paper an inquiry on these points should have been made amongst a group of uncircumcised men. This was not attempted, although with regard to the last two of the factors mentioned it should be stated that whenever the subject has been broached in male company those still in possession of their foreskin have been forward in their insistence that any differences which may exist in such matters operate emphatically to their own advantage.
Moreover, if there were sensible disadvantages in being uncircumcised, one would expect that the fathers of candidates for circumcision would sometimes register their feelings in the matter. Yet in interviewing the parents of several hundred infants referred for circumcision I have met but one father who wished his son circumcised because of his disagreeable experience of the uncircumcised state. The rest of the fathers were equally indifferent about the matter whether they themselves had been circumcised or not. Indeed, so little did the father's personal experience seem important that one-quarter of the mothers did not even know whether their husbands were or were not circumcised. These facts provide some evidence that few uncircumcised men have cause to regret their state.
It has been shown that, since during the first few year of life the prepuce is still in process of developing, it is impossible at this period to determine in which infants the prepuce will attain normal retractability. In fact, only about 10% will fail to attain this by the age of 3 years. Of this 10% of 3-year-old boys, in most it will be found a simple matter to render the prepuce retractable by completing its separation from the glans by gentle manipulation. In a very few this may prove impossible and circumcision might then be considered a justifiable precaution. Higgins (1949), with long experience of paediatric urology, also concludes that circumcision should not be considered until "after the age of, say, 2 to 3 years."
The prepuce of the young infant should therefore be left in its natural state. As soon as it becomes retractable, which will generally occur some time between 9 months and 3 years, its toilet should be included in the routine of bath time, and soap and water applied to it in the same fashion as to other structures, such as the ears, which are customarily treated with special assiduousness on account of their propensity to retain dirt. As the boy grows up he should be taught to keep his prepuce clean himself, just as he is taught to wash his ears. If such a procedure became customary the circumcision of children would become an uncommon operation. This would result in the saving of about 16 children's lives lost from circumcision each year in this country, besides saving much parental anxiety and an appreciable amount of the time of doctors and nurses.
The development of the prepuce is incomplete in the newborn male child, and separation from the glans, rendering it retractable, does not usually occur until some time between 9 months and 3 years. True phimosis is extremely rare in infancy.
During the first year or two of life, when the infant is incontinent, the prepuce fulfils an essential function in protecting the glans. Its removal predisposes to meatal ulceration.
The many and varied reasons commonly advanced for circumcising infants are critically examined. None are convincing.
Though early circumcision will prevent penile cancer, there is reason to suppose that keeping the prepuce clean would have a like effect in preventing this disease.
In the light of these facts a conservative attitude towards the prepuce is proposed, and a routine for its hygiene is suggested. If adopted this would eliminate the vast majority of the tens of thousands of circumcision operations performed annually in this country, along with their yearly toll of some 16 child deaths.
My thanks are due to Dr. A. M. Barrett for pathological facilities.
Benson, R. A., Slobody, L. B., Lillick, L., Maffia, A., and Sullivan,
N. (1949). J. Pediat., 34, 49.
Campbell, M. F. (1948). In Brennemann's Practice of Pediatrics,
vol. 3, chap. 30, p. 34. Hagerstown.
Cooke, J. V. (1921). Amer. J. Dis. Child., 22, 481.
Dean, A. L. (1935). J. Urol., 33, 252.
Deibert, G.
A. (1933). Anat. Rec., 57, 387.
Freud, P. (1947). J. Pediat., 31, 131.
Handley, W. S. (1947). British Medical Journal, 2, 841.
Higgins, T. T. (1949). In Garrod, Batten, and Thursfield's Diseases
of Children, 2, 462. London.
Hunter, R. H. (1935). J. Anat., 70, 68.
Kennaway, E. L. (1947). Brit. J. Cancer, 1, 335.
Lewis, L. G. (1931). J. Urol., 26, 295.
Lloyd, V. E., and Lloyd, N. L. (1934). British Medical Journal,
1, 144.
Schrek, R., and Lenowitz, H. (1947). Cancer Res., 7,
180.
Wilson, R. A. (1947). Canad. med. Ass. J., 56, 54.
(* *)Dr. H. P. Broda, assistant school M.O., Cambridge; Dr. Eileen Brereton, assistant school M.O., Cambridgeshire; Drs. F. J. W. Miller and S. D. Court, Child Health Department, King's College, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Dr. Margaret Patterson, assistant M.O.H., Cambridge; Sir Alan Rook, senior health officer, Cambridge University; Dr. R. E. Smith, medical officer to Rugby School. It is a pleasure to record my thanks to all these colleagues for their ready co-operation and many painstaking observations, and for generously allowing me to quote their findings.