Routine neonatal circumcision for the prevention of urinary tract infections in infancy

CUA guideline on the care of the normal foreskin and neonatal circumcision in Canadian infants

“…The authors suggested a NNT of 4.2 (95% CI 2.2-27) for preventing 1 UTI over a lifetime. A Cochrane review in 2012 failed to identify any new RCT's to include in a meta-analysis [37].…”

The Ethical Course Is To Recommend Infant Male Circumcision — Arguments Disparaging American Academy of Pediatrics Affirmative Policy Do Not Withstand Scrutiny

“…Svoboda et al . misrepresent a Cochrane analysis that confined their inclusion criteria to just RCTs, 99 while ignoring the more than 20 case-control, cohort and retrospective studies, some involving tens of thousands of boys. The Cochrane authors missed a published RCT that showed MC reduced UTI 7-fold in boys aged 3 months to 10 years.…”

Nontherapeutic Circumcision of Minors as an Ethically Problematic Form of Iatrogenic Injury

“…Frisch et al noted that the only relevant benefit of circumcision in infancy is a reduction in the risk of contracting a urinary tract infection (UTI) in early childhood [16]. According to the Cochrane Review, circumcision cannot be shown to meaningfully lessen the risk of contracting a UTI [30]. Moreover, even if NTC were able to substantially reduce the incidence of UTIs, this would not be sufficient to render the procedure ethically acceptable, because these infections are rare (approximately 1 percent) in boys, are generally confined to the first half year of life, and are susceptible to easy treatment with oral antibiotics [31,32].…”