Adult Circumcision Outcomes Study: Effect on Erectile Function, Penile Sensitivity, Sexual Activity and Satisfaction
Abstract
Purpose:
Evidence concerning the effect of circumcision on sexual function is lacking. Men circumcised as adults are potentially in a unique position to comment on the effect of a prepuce on sexual intercourse. We examine sexual function outcomes in men who have experienced sexual intercourse in the uncircumcised and circumcised states.
Materials and Methods:
Men 18 years old or older when circumcised were identified by billing records during a 5-year period at an academic medical center. Medical charts were reviewed for confirmation of the procedure and to identify the indication(s). These men were surveyed to assess erectile function, penile sensitivity, sexual activity and overall satisfaction. Data were analyzed using paired t tests to compare category scores before and after circumcision.
Results:
A total of 123 men were circumcised as adults. Indications for circumcision included phimosis in 64% of cases, balanitis in 17%, condyloma in 10%, redundant foreskin in 9% and elective in 7%. The response rate was 44% among potential responders. Mean age of responders was 42 years at circumcision and 46 years at survey. Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function (p = 0.01), decreased penile sensitivity (p = 0.08), no change in sexual activity (p = 0.22) and improved satisfaction (p = 0.04). Of the men 50% reported benefits and 38% reported harm. Overall, 62% of men were satisfied with having been circumcised.
Conclusions:
Our findings may help urologists better counsel men undergoing circumcision as adults. Prospective studies are needed to better understand the relationship between circumcision and sexual function.
References
- 1 : Pediatrics1999; 103: 686. Google Scholar
- 2 American Academy of Family Physicians policy statement on circumcision. http://www.aafp.org/policy/camp/4.html. Accessed June 11, 2001 Google Scholar
- 3 American Urological Association: Circumcision policy statement. http://www.auanet.org/aboutaua/policy_statements/services.cfm#circumcision. Accessed June 11, 2001 Google Scholar
- 4 : Neonatal circumcision: a dispassionate analysis. Clin Obstet Gynecol1999; 42: 849. Google Scholar
- 5 : Human Sexual Response. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.1966: 189. Google Scholar
- 6 : Should circumcision be done routinely?. Med Aspects Hum Sexual1967; 1: 32. Google Scholar
- 7 : Whither the foreskin: a consideration of routine neonatal circumcision. JAMA1970; 213: 1853. Google Scholar
- 8 : Circumcision at the 121st evacuation hospital: report of a questionnaire with cross-cultural differences. Military Med1989; 154: 169. Google Scholar
- 9 : An international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology1997; 49: 822. Google Scholar
- 10 : The changes in sexual functioning questionnaire (CSFQ): development, reliability, and validity. Psychopharmacol Bull1997; 33: 731. Google Scholar
- 11 : Assessment of sexual function in depressed, impotent, and healthy men: factor analysis of a brief sexual function questionnaire for men. Psychiatry Res1988; 24: 231. Google Scholar
- 12 : Construction of scales for the Center for Marital and Sexual Health (CMASH) Sexual Functioning Questionnaire. J Sex Marital Ther1997; 23: 103. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar
- 13 :
The Social Organization of Sexuality . In: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press1994: 626. Google Scholar - 14 : Male circumcision: assessment of health benefits and risks. Sex Transm Infect1998; 74: 368. Google Scholar
- 15 : Penile plunder. Med J Aust1967; 1: 1102. Google Scholar
- 16 : The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Br J Urol1996; 77: 291. Google Scholar
- 17 : Circumcision: the uniquely American medical enigma. Urol Clin North Am1985; 12: 123. Google Scholar
- 18 : Circumcision decision: prominence of social concerns. Pediatrics1987; 80: 215. Google Scholar
- 19 : Women’s preferences for penile circumcision in sexual partners. J Sex Educ Ther1988; 14: 8. Google Scholar
- 20 : Circumcision in the United States. JAMA1997; 277: 1052. Google Scholar
From the Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program and Division of Urology, School of Medicine, and the Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina
