Risk of Urinary Tract Infection in Uncircumcised Boys

By  ,  Onlymyhealth editorial team
Jul 20, 2012

Subscribe for daily wellness inspiration

Like onlymyhealth on Facebook!

Risk of Urinary Tract Infection in Uncircumcised Boys

Baby boys who remain uncircumcised are under higher risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) compared to circumcised boys, says study. According to the new research, circumcised baby boys have one in a thousand odds of getting a UTI, while that of the uncircumcised is one in a hundred.

According to the Dr. Alexander Sasha Dubrovsky, the lead researcher of the study, there is a case for a tight foreskin leading to the increased risk. To confirm this, Dr. Dubrovsky studied 393 baby boys in the Montreal Children's Hospital and McGill University in Quebec, Canada.

309 out of these boys were uncircumcised. These were indeed found to be more at risk of the infection. The tightness of foreskin was not found to have any role to play in this. The high UTI risk of these baby boys did not depend on whether their foreskin was tight or not.

Dr. Dubrovsky stated that the research led by her did not settle the question of circumcision as mandatory for boys or not, as the risk of UTI in even uncircumcised boys is not high enough to warrant this. This is backed by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).



Write a Review Feedback
Is it Helpful Article?YES2 Votes 13003 Views 1 Comment
Post a Comment

Though all possible measures have been taken to ensure accuracy, reliability, timeliness and authenticity of the information; Onlymyhealth assumes no liability for the same. Using any information of this website is at the viewers’ risk. Please be informed that we are not responsible for advice/tips given by any third party in form of comments on article pages . If you have or suspect having any medical condition, kindly contact your professional health care provider.

  • Hugh721 Jul 2012

    Your story is not about what the study actually found. It rehashed existing claims that circumcised boys have fewer UTIs and found that whether the foreskin was tight or not makes no difference - which is evidence against the assumption. They found fewer circumcised boys with UTIS, but by only half the margin of the earlier studies, and theirs was not a random sample: for example, boys who had been treated with antibiotics were excluded. They say themselves it was a "convenience sample".