Found on emedicine.com:

Meatal stenosis is a relatively common acquired condition occurring in 9-10% of males who are circumcised.
...
Because this condition is exceedingly rare in children who are not circumcised, circumcision is believed to be the most important causative factor of meatal stenosis.

Executive summary: www.emedicine.com/ped/byname/meatal-stenosis.htm
Full topic: www.emedicine.com/PED/topic2356.htm

Found on emedicine.com:

Meatal stenosis is a relatively common acquired condition occurring in 9-10% of males who are circumcised.
...
Because this condition is exceedingly rare in children who are not circumcised, circumcision is believed to be the most important causative factor of meatal stenosis.

Executive summary: www.emedicine.com/ped/byname/meatal-stenosis.htm
Full topic: www.emedicine.com/PED/topic2356.htm


Hmm... shouldn't that number trump the alleged "higher" rate (whatever it is) of intact boys having UTIs? :wink

edit: I just wanted to say that I think my ex-dp has meatal stenosis. I'm intact and he is a RIC case (I grieve for his loss even if he doesn't) and he and I were... uh, comparing in general and mentioned to me that I have such a large (wide, long) "pee slit" and asked me if I had a physical defect. He has a very closed together, very short "pee slit", not to mention that upside down "V"-shape indent where his frenulum should be (just more of a puff of skin on the underside). I told him straight out that I didn't. That it was the natural way it is and that his smaller one was probably due to his circumcision. I don't think I had the term meatal stenosis on the tip of my tongue, but that's what I was thinking he has. Based on descriptions and pictures, I would say it is!

Meatal stenosis is a relatively common acquired condition occurring in 9-10% of males who are circumcised.

Because this condition is exceedingly rare in children who are not circumcised, circumcision is believed to be the most important causative factor of meatal stenosis.

Something so conveniently avoided when physicians are giving the "so-called" informed consent to parents prior to the cutting...

:irked:

what is the supposed complication rate for circumcision anyway? I woulnt be suprised if meatal stenosis was not included in the compication rates.

Meatal stenosis is the great secret of RIC. THe symtoms (difficulty urinating, inability to maintain a steady stream, a split stream) do not manifest themselves until a boy is potty trained. By that time, feew to no parents make the connection with circumcision as the cause, though circumcisiion is the caue in almost all cases. Doctors who diagnose the meatal stenosis never (so far as I know) tell the parents what the cause was, though they certainly know. Thus, parents who have sone with meatal stenosis never know what caused it because the doctors just treat the symptoms (by urethral dilatation or by enlarging the meatus surgically) without telling the parents the cause. I suspect that if parents knew the caue that that knowledge alone could reduce the RIC rate by as much as 10%. By the way, the figures for percent of boys affected by meatal stenosis to one degree or another is generally listed as 9-13%.

I wish I had known this when my son had to have surgery to correct his. It wasn't an office procedure though like they say in the summary. He was in the hospital and actually put to sleep. I can't imagine going through something so traumatic with my son awake.. although I did have him circ'd. I did not know it was direct effect of his circumcision.. and eventhough he was out for the surgery the aftercare was horrific and not quite as "mild" as they say in the article either. I had to put an ointment on his penis and also had to insert a catheter like tube inside for up to 6 months. I am not sure why so long exactly but I think his doctor wanted to make sure that it didn't reoccur. I also noticed he was having a problem after he was out of diapers. He was 4 and started wetting the bed which he had never done before. I happened to walk past one day when he was going potty and heard him crying.. when I looked at his penis I noticed the hole was approximately the size of a pinhole. I had taken him into the doctor prior to this and they told me that he was just displaying delayed jealousy of the baby by wetting the bed. When I saw how small the hole was I knew that wasn't right and got him into a urologist immediately. Had I known that this is caused by circumcision I doubt I would have had my youngest circ'd.. I wish they handed out pamphlets when you are pregnant discussing all the long-term effects of circumcision.. pretty much everything I read was a lie. :irked:

I developed this shortly after they re-circ'd me at the age of six. So in reality, one wrong led to two more wrongs. I don't think anyone ever admitted it was a consequence of the circ.

I know this is old...

My son has this. He was circ'd and they botched his a bit, and now he has meatal stenosis. He had the surgery in the surgery center under general anesthesia and it didn't do anything, as far as I can tell.

He was getting infections in the tip of his penis. He has been having incontinence issues (he is 5) that he can't control, he pees in akward directions and it is painful.

He is still having issues since the meatotomy, but it hasn't worked 100%. :gloomy:

Just sharing our story.

He is still having issues since the meatotomy, but it hasn't worked 100%. :gloomy:
:Hug


My son's urologist said his meatal stenosis would have been avoided if he had NOT been circumcised. He is one doctor to admit the meatal stenosis was caused from circumcision.

I know this is old...

My son has this. He was circ'd and they botched his a bit, and now he has meatal stenosis. He had the surgery in the surgery center under general anesthesia and it didn't do anything, as far as I can tell.

He was getting infections in the tip of his penis. He has been having incontinence issues (he is 5) that he can't control, he pees in akward directions and it is painful.

He is still having issues since the meatotomy, but it hasn't worked 100%. :gloomy:

Just sharing our story.



PLEASE consider a lawsuit. These attorneys will help you and/or point you in the right direction:

www.arclaw.org

You need to send a powerful message to that doctor.

Thanks for bumping this thread up again. It never hurts to revisit
the subject, so many boys are affected. It's another one of those
"ka-ching" machines for the pediatricians. Should be criminalized.

yes, thank you for bumping this. my friend's (circ'd) son had a suregery at 3 months for what i believe is meatal stenosis. his urine stream was split. she said it was a form of hypospadias, but that never seemed right to me.

Thanks for bumping this thread up again. It never hurts to revisit
the subject, so many boys are affected. It's another one of those
"ka-ching" machines for the pediatricians. Should be criminalized.

I think it helped my urologist make a little bonus $$$ off me too. He noted "meatal stenosis" every time he had to "dilate" (luckily I only had to be awake for it one of the three times) me while treating my kidney stones. My guess is he got some extra $$$ for doing it.

When I got a follow up questionnaire from my health plan in the comment section I asked if that was the case. I also stated that I hoped they weren't using my health care dollars to pay for infant circ's, if the parents want cosmetic surgery they should pay for it on their own.

So much stuff gets blamed on intactness, they should really count this as a cost/consequence of circ. I'm wondering if I'll hear back from them......

Thanks. The urologist who did the surgery told me it was very common in circ'd boys, too. His healed back to how it was within hours of surgery and I couldn't keep it apart. Poor guy.

A lot of bad things happened at his birth. I had a horrible feeling about sending him to get circ'd after the birth (right after I had a seizure from so much blood loss!), but didn't have time to stop it. It is a huge regret.

I would sue, but from what I have heard, his is nowhere near as bad as a lot of them. I wish I could get my hands on his records after the birth, or that I had documented it...

I would sue, but from what I have heard, his is nowhere near as bad as a lot of them. I wish I could get my hands on his records after the birth, or that I had documented it...

They attorneys can help you get the records. PLEASE just contact the attorneys at the link I posted..........they can tell you whether or not to pursue litigation.

My nephew had to have surgery to fix it (widen the hole) plus his pee hole was a little further back then it normally is on a penis. They repaired it at the same time he had to have surgery on a undecended testicle.

What does a "normal" male urinary opening look like? I honestly don't know (DS is a baby and obviously won't be seeing it on him as his foreskin is there). And, sadly, I do believe that DH's has also been "narrowed".

9-10%, which makes the published complication rate of 3-4% (like on the aap information) totally erroneous. Oops, edited to correct. AAP rates is stated at .2-.6%

Just pointing that out, once again.

Jessica

What does a "normal" male urinary opening look like? I honestly don't know (DS is a baby and obviously won't be seeing it on him as his foreskin is there). And, sadly, I do believe that DH's has also been "narrowed".
It looks like a slit. Straight up and down. About half an inch on an adult. Take that and proportion it to that of a child. Its quite pronounced when spread apart. I know this b/c dh had a different circ after he was born. The glans were still covered so his meatus was protected (more so than the kind they do now days). His opening, I imagine, represents what a normal meatus looks like.

I was even told by our urologist that it was about 10%. That is the stat (9-10%) that I find everywhere. I would assume 3-4% would be someone who doesn't read the research right.

Ds' meatus is like a very small hole/slit. It is very tiny.

I was even told by our urologist that it was about 10%. That is the stat (9-10%) that I find everywhere. I would assume 3-4% would be someone who doesn't read the research right.


FROM the AAP Circumcision Policy Statement
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686

COMPLICATIONS OF THE CIRCUMCISION PROCEDURE
The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown.32 Reports of two large series have suggested that the complication rate is somewhere between 0.2% and 0.6%.33,34 Most of the complications that do occur are minor.35 The most frequent complication, bleeding, is seen in ~0.1% of circumcisions.35 It is quite rare to need transfusion after a circumcision because most bleeding episodes can be handled quite well with local measures (pressure, hemostatic agents, cautery, sutures). Infection is the second most common of the complications, but most of these infections are minor and are manifest only by some local redness and purulence.33 There also are isolated case reports of other complications such as recurrent phimosis, wound separation, concealed penis, unsatisfactory cosmesis because of excess skin, skin bridges, urinary retention, meatitis, meatal stenosis, chordee, inclusion cysts, and retained Plastibell devices.35 Case reports have been noted associating circumcision with such rare events as scalded skin syndrome, necrotizing fasciitis, sepsis, and meningitis, as well as with major surgical problems such as urethral fistula, amputation of a portion of the glans penis, and penile necrosis.32,35


See, they completely DO NOT mention meatal stenosis as a complication of circumcision.

So i'm incorrect about the 3% anyways... that must be a figure that was used online at one point-- some pro-circs would not 'disagree' with a 3% complication rate in other discussions so I think that's why I've used it... but the AAP states .2-.6%.

And the AAP says nothign about the rate of recircumcision, which is 1%.

The point is that parents considering circumcisoin are led to believe it is FAR less risky that it is. With a 9% risk of meatal stenosis and 70% chance of adhesion problems that is RARELY mentioned, no wonder parents feel secure making the choice when the AAP and other medical professionals present the risks as minor and extremely rare. And not to mention a 1% chance of having to re-due the circ, which is rarely mentioned. All they get information on is that there are risks of hygeine, infection, etc if they leave their son intact.

Jessica

FROM the AAP Circumcision Policy Statement
http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;103/3/686




See, they completely DO NOT mention meatal stenosis as a complication of circumcision.

So i'm incorrect about the 3% anyways... that must be a figure that was used online at one point-- some pro-circs would not 'disagree' with a 3% complication rate in other discussions so I think that's why I've used it... but the AAP states .2-.6%.

And the AAP says nothign about the rate of recircumcision, which is 1%.

The point is that parents considering circumcisoin are led to believe it is FAR less risky that it is. With a 9% risk of meatal stenosis and 70% chance of adhesion problems that is RARELY mentioned, no wonder parents feel secure making the choice when the AAP and other medical professionals present the risks as minor and extremely rare. And not to mention a 1% chance of having to re-due the circ, which is rarely mentioned. All they get information on is that there are risks of hygeine, infection, etc if they leave their son intact.

Jessica
They do mention meatal stenosis here
There also are isolated case reports of other complications such as recurrent phimosis, wound separation, concealed penis, unsatisfactory cosmesis because of excess skin, skin bridges, urinary retention, meatitis, meatal stenosis, chordee, inclusion cysts, and retained Plastibell devices.35 Case reports have been noted associating circumcision with such rare events as scalded skin syndrome, necrotizing fasciitis, sepsis, and meningitis, as well as with major surgical problems such as urethral fistula, amputation of a portion of the glans penis, and penile necrosis.32,35
The way they mention them after pointing out how rare bleeding is and calling it the most prevalent complication makes it sound like it happen extremely rarely though. They also lump in a bunch of other common problems.

I think they get away with wording it in such a misleading way b/c technically meatal stenosis (and the other things they mention) aren't complications. If the glans of the penis is cut off during a circ that is considered a complication b/c something went wrong. Everything can go right (can't think of other way to word this) and no mistakes are made and the boy will get meatal stenosis. It's more like a side effect than a complication.

Everything can go right (can't think of other way to word this) and no mistakes are made and the boy will get meatal stenosis. It's more like a side effect than a complication.


:dizzy:

...most bleeding episodes can be handled quite well with local measures (pressure, hemostatic agents, cautery, sutures)...

Holy hell they actually cauterize a bleeding penis? I know this is a little off topic but....wow. :(