Question re: UTI research

[paminmi]

I was thinking...many parents continue to circumcise because of the "so called" UTI study that states intact babies are more likely to get UTI.

From everything I read, this study is flawed because of the use of premature babies or babies with anatomical problems.

Does anybody know if there is any ongoing NEW research comparing apples with apples, so to speak.

If that happens, we can have ammunition to dispel yet another myth pertaining to the intact penis.

TIA,
Pam

[Pandora114]

http://www.cps.ca/english/statements/FN/fn96-01.htm

Check that out. If that doesn't debunk it, nothing will.

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by paminmi

From everything I read, this study is flawed because of the use of premature babies or babies with anatomical problems.

Not only that, but those who promote genital reduction surgery use the research to mislead. They are quite fond of saying that circumcision will reduce the incidence of UTI ten fold. What they are doing is lying by not telling the whole story. "Liars figure to make figures lie." They never tell parents that less than 1 in 100 boys will suffer a urinary tract infection, they don't tell them that this tendency is mostly for the first 6 months to a year and they don't tell them virtually all UTIs can easily be treated with oral medication. They are simply out to scare parents into circumcising their sons.

Does anybody know if there is any ongoing NEW research comparing apples with apples, so to speak.

Unless some pro-circumcisionist decides to add something with their own twist and agenda, don't look for it. There is ample research into the issue and anything they could do would add little.

If that happens, we can have ammunition to dispel yet another myth pertaining to the intact penis.

We already have ample evidence. The UTI issue is already destroyed for anyone except those who are in denial and those who profit from circumcision.





Frank

[feebeeglee]

I'm going to start saying "There have been studies showing a less than one percent increase in the UTI rate of intact boys in the first year of life but that insignificant increase disappears when the child is breastfed - even if he is switched to formula."

[Frankly Speaking]

Originally Posted by feebeeglee

I'm going to start saying "There have been studies showing a one percent increase in the UTI rate "

It's actually less than one percent. If you throw out Wiswell's piece of trash, the one linked above is 9/10ths of 1% and all of the rest are even less.

I also wonder how many boys in these studies are premies and not circumcised. That alone could bring the statistics to virtually the same number since premies are at an acknowledged increased risk. As close as the numbers are, I suspect that if all variables were removed, there would be no difference in the UTI rate. Imagine if the boys were checked for structural abnormalities and urinary reflux. That could also even out the numbers.

A single boy out of 200 could flip the results the other way around and show that circumcisions cause UTIs. That's too close to conclusively say that the mere presence of a foreskin is a risk factor.




Frank

[feebeeglee]

Originally Posted by Frankly Speaking

A single boy out of 200 could flip the results the other way around and show that circumcisions cause UTIs. That's too close to conclusively say that the mere presence of a foreskin is a risk factor.

Oo, good point!

[wendy1221]

My own theory is that the increase is due to all of the parents who are instructed to retract and clean at every diaper change. That's got to let in a bunch of nasty stuff.

[shaylahc]

My intact son had 2 UTIs in the first 2 months of life. He was not retracted, so that dispels that myth. I took him to see a pediatric urologist/surgeon (only because one of my daughters was born with a urinary tract abnormality and we know this doctor well) and he told me that in his experience (as a top surgeon at a major research university) that when he sees baby boys less than 6 months of age show up with UTIs in the ER they are almost always intact. He said after 6 months there was no difference. He does not advocate circumcision.

I actually did some reading about newborn UTIs after my son got his first and I was surprised to read that UTIs are more common in newborn boys than girls. The theory is that males in general are more susceptible to just about everything (same reason why preemie girls tend to do better than preemie boys) and most newborn UTIs are actually caused by bacteria they are born with. That's right, chances are they acquired the bacteria at delivery from their mothers. Or it's possible since their immune systems seem to be weaker than girls they are simply unable to fight the bacteria off as well.

Just some food for thought. My son hasn't had another UTI since he was 8 weeks old and is still intact.

[Frankly Speaking]

I think the reason more urinary tract infections may be observed in intact boys is because premature boys are less likely to be circumcised. Premature boys are known to be at a higher risk of UTIs because their urinary tract is not fully developed at birth and needs to do some additional straightening out. Normally, the byproducts of the kidneys of these boys would be removed through the umbilical cord but when a boy arrives early, the urinary tract is put into use before it is fully ready. As mentioned above, the differential is so small that a single case in 200 to 500 patients can throw the results in exactly the opposite direction. If premies were eliminated from the studies, it may well be shown that the foreskin is actually protective against UTIs.

You have to look at this with a clear mind. At birth and for a significant time, the foreskin is tightly adhered to the glans. In other words, it is sealed and nothing can get between the foreskin and glans so there is no way any harmful bacteria can establish. The part of the foreskin that extends beyond the tip of the glans is the same as the urethra and would be at no more risk of infection than the urethra. The Urethra and foreskin tip are flushed with sterile urine each time the child urinates, flushing any contamination out. Therefore, the intact child would be at no greater risk of UTIs than a circumcised child. We only find these assertions credible because we have always heard that the intact penis is dirty. At least in an infant, that is certainly not true. It is no dirtier than his urethra.



Frank

[wendy1221]

Originally Posted by shaylahc

My intact son had 2 UTIs in the first 2 months of life. He was not retracted, so that dispels that myth. I took him to see a pediatric urologist/surgeon (only because one of my daughters was born with a urinary tract abnormality and we know this doctor well) and he told me that in his experience (as a top surgeon at a major research university) that when he sees baby boys less than 6 months of age show up with UTIs in the ER they are almost always intact. He said after 6 months there was no difference. He does not advocate circumcision.

I actually did some reading about newborn UTIs after my son got his first and I was surprised to read that UTIs are more common in newborn boys than girls. The theory is that males in general are more susceptible to just about everything (same reason why preemie girls tend to do better than preemie boys) and most newborn UTIs are actually caused by bacteria they are born with. That's right, chances are they acquired the bacteria at delivery from their mothers. Or it's possible since their immune systems seem to be weaker than girls they are simply unable to fight the bacteria off as well.

Just some food for thought. My son hasn't had another UTI since he was 8 weeks old and is still intact.

That is very ture. Boys are born more fragile than girls. And stay that way. Men may be stronger than women when it comes to lifting heavy objects, but their health is much more fragile. Boys are much more likely to die from the time they are forming in the womb until they are old men. That's why old women greatly outnumber old men. Yet boys are bigger risk takers on top of their already weakened odds.

Boys urinary systems (and heart for that matter, or just about everything really) are less formed at birth. Their neurons take longer to connect. This is the reason boys potty train later than girls in general. It's because their bodies are not as advanced yet. They have to catch up. Their brain doesn't have the nerve connections to realize the bladder is full or to give the boy a lot of control over his bladder. Interesting isn't it?

So I guess there could be a lot of things that may play a part. Either way, intact boys still don't have a higher incidence of UTI's than girls (correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought I read that was true?) so what's the difference? It's the WORST excuse of all I've heard!

[Frankly Speaking]

Girls are about 450% more likely to get UTIs than boys. It has been suggested this is because of their shorter urethra allowing bacteria to travel to the bladder more quickly and easily.




Frank