"Circumcision and Lifetime Risk of Urinary Tract Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis"
https://www.auajournals.org/doi/10.1016/j.juro.2012.11.114"Newborn circumcision is as
protective against UTIs as are many vaccines given
to children to prevent other infections and diseases. For example, the level of protection deemed
acceptable against influenza vaccines justifies
claims that infant male circumcision be regarded as
a surgical vaccine."
>Based on this (((they))) are proposing circumcision as "surgical vaccination" against UTI in ALL males. I don't even know what to say.
Why hasn nature not devolved the foreskin if this was such a big factor or issue?
Why has it evolved it in the first place?
Something can't be right here, though I don't see any methodological error.
Cochrane said this:
"Interventions for primary vesicoureteric reflux"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30784039/(figure 8.3, analysis 8.3)
Full text:
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001532.pub5/fullGocuk 2013 on circumcision:
>but symptomatic UTI and DMSA changes showed no differences across treatment groupsMy prof said that along with antibiotic treatment circumcision is an option to prevent bacteria in urine when treating vesicoureteral reflux. (Of course along with surgical treatments such as ureterovesicostomia, dextran injections and other that I don't remember)
It didn't make much sense to me because in UTI in males from the foreskin bacteria would have to travel far, and there is no "urethral-vesical reflux", just as in infants. I asked her if circumcision in this case was evidence based and she said yes, link to auajournals.
What do you say?
Circumcision to prevent UTI, yes? If so in which cases?
