From my textbook:

[MisaGoat]

I am taking a physical examination and health assessment course. I thought some here would be interested on the content.

"In the circumcised infant, the glans looks smooth with the meatus centered at the tip. While the child wears diapers, the meatus may become ulcerated from ammonia irritation. This is more common in circumcised infants." Then next to that under "abnormal findings" : "Occasionally, ulceration may produce a stricture, shown in by a pinpoint meatus and narrow stream. This increases the risk of urine obstruction." 

So that would be viewed as showing a benefit of remaining intact, right?

However a little lower on the page it talks about retraction:

"If uncircumcised, the foreskin is normally tight during the first 3 months and should not be retracted because of the risk of tearing the membrane attaching the foreskin to the shaft. This leads to scarring and, possibly, to adhesions later in life. In infants older than 3 months of age, retract the foreskin gently to check the glans and meatus. It should return to its original position easily."

Sigh. I wonder where they got 3 months from?

I have a 4 1/2 year old and a 4 month old. I haven't noted any retraction yet.

But there you go for information as to what is being taught about assessment.

Edited by MisaGoat - 4/19/11 at 9:16pm

[Ellien C]

What is the date on the book?

If you are truly interested, you can write the publisher, including better journal articles that advise against retraction.

When I worked in publishing we always had a file for reprints and always went through corrections when books were reprinted or revised.

[Ron_Low]

If the book actually says "glands" that's all you need to know about this author's credentials on this subject. 

[MisaGoat]

Ellien C- 2008. Good idea, thanks. I'll have to find the right source/info. 

Ron- totally my typo (i had one of each, opps). fixed it now.

[MisaGoat]

I sent an email. I wonder what reply I'll get.