The effect of male circumcision on sexual satisfaction and function, results from a randomized trial of male circumcision for human immunodeficiency virus prevention, Rakai, Uganda
Abstract
Associate Editor
Michael G. Wyllie
Editorial Board
Ian Eardley, UK
Jean Fourcroy, USA
Sidney Glina, Brazil
Julia Heiman, USA
Chris McMahon, Australia
Bob Millar, UK
Alvaro Morales, Canada
Michael Perelman, USA
Marcel Waldinger, Netherlands
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the relationship between adult male circumcision and sexual satisfaction and function in men, as observational studies on the effect of adult male circumcision on sexual satisfaction show conflicting results.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS
We investigated self‐reported sexual satisfaction and function among men enrolled in a randomized trial of male circumcision for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention conducted in Rakai, Uganda. In all, 4456 sexually experienced HIV‐negative males aged 15–49 years were enrolled; 2210 were randomized to receive immediate circumcision (intervention arm) and 2246 to circumcision delayed for 24 months (control arm). Men were followed up at 6, 12 and 24 months, and information on sexual desire, satisfaction and erectile dysfunction was collected. These variables were compared between the study arms and over time within the study arms, using chi‐square or Fisher’s exact tests. The trial registration number is NCT00425984.
RESULTS
There were no differences between the study arms at enrolment and problems with sexual satisfaction and function were reported by <2% of participants in both study arms at all time points. At 6 months, no difficulty with penetration was reported by 98.6% of circumcised men and 99.4% of controls (P = 0.02), and no pain on intercourse was reported by 99.4% circumcised and 98.8% of uncircumcised men (P = 0.05). There were no differences between the study arms in penetration or dyspareunia at later visits. Sexual satisfaction increased from 98.0% at enrolment to 99.9% at 2 years among the controls (P < 0.001), but there was no trend in satisfaction among circumcised men (enrolment 98.5%, 2 years 98.4%, P = 0.8).
CONCLUSION
Adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men.
Abbreviations
-
- HIV
-
- human immunodeficiency virus
-
- IRB
-
- Institutional Review Board.
INTRODUCTION
Several observational studies of the effect of male circumcision on penile sensitivity, sexual satisfaction and dysfunction have shown conflicting results [1-8], ranging from decreased satisfaction and function, to improvement following circumcision. Interpretation of these results is difficult because men circumcised in adulthood were highly selected due to medical indications for surgery, circumcised infants cannot provide before and after comparisons, sample sizes were small and follow‐up was short.
The efficacy of male circumcision for prevention of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in men has been proven in three randomized trials conducted in sub‐Saharan Africa [9-11], and the WHO now recommends the procedure as a component of HIV prevention programmes [12]. However, there is a need to ensure that the procedure is acceptable, and acceptability might be affected by the perceived or actual effects of surgery on sexual function and satisfaction.
Opponents of circumcision, using results from selected observational studies, have argued that the procedure impairs sexual function, and reduces sexual pleasure and satisfaction through keratinization of the glans, removal of the most sensitive preputial tissues, and loss of the ‘gliding’ mechanism provided by the foreskin [13]. Anthropologists have also speculated that by potentially reducing sexual excitability, circumcision might facilitate control of adolescent males’ sexuality in certain populations [14]. Thus, understanding how circumcision impacts sexual pleasure will be important in formulating public health messages to promote circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy [15-17].
We report results of the effect of male circumcision on sexual satisfaction and function from a randomized trial of male circumcision for HIV prevention conducted in Rakai, Uganda.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS
The trial design has been described previously [3], but in brief, the trial enrolled HIV‐negative uncircumcised males aged 15–49 years. All participants provided informed consent for screening and for randomization to immediate circumcision (intervention arm), or circumcision delayed for 24 months (control arm). The men agreed to and received their HIV results and counselling. All surgeries were performed by trained medical officers and were conducted in fully equipped outpatient theatres located in a central facility. Details of surgery, using the ‘sleeve procedure’, and follow up are provided elsewhere [3].
The trial enrolled 4996 HIV‐negative males. There were 2474 participants randomized to receive immediate circumcision, of whom 2210 (89.3%) were sexually active at time of enrolment and thus could provide information on their sexual experiences before and after circumcision. There were 2522 men randomized to the control arm, of whom 2246 (89.1%) were sexually active at enrolment.
All men randomized to the intervention arm provided written informed consent for surgery and they were strongly advised to refrain from sexual intercourse after surgery until the wound was certified by a clinician to be fully healed. All participants were advised to practice safe sex (i.e. sexual abstinence, monogamy with an uninfected partner and consistent condom use), and were offered free condoms.
At baseline and all follow‐up visits, at 6, 12, and 24 months after enrolment, information on sexual experience were collected by male interviewers using a standardized questionnaire. The questions were derived from the International Index of Erectile Function [18] and the relevant questions are given in the Appendix. This information included general sexual desire and satisfaction, as well as sexual dysfunction such as failure to achieve or maintain a full erection, difficulty inserting the penis, difficulty ejaculating and pain in the penis during or after intercourse. Men who reported any problem with sexual satisfaction or function were seen by programme medical officers for management and referral to a urologist when necessary.
This trial was reviewed and approved by two Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in Uganda and two IRBs in the USA, and monitored by a National Institutes of Health Data Safety Monitoring Board. The trial is registered with Clinical Trials. Gov, number NCT00425984.
We compared rates of reported sexual satisfaction and sexual dysfunction between the study arms and over the follow‐up time within the study arms, among men who had sexual intercourse prior to enrolment. Only sexually active men were included in the analysis to enable comparisons before and after circumcision in the intervention arm.
Tests of statistical inference were based on chi‐square or the Fisher’s exact tests for proportions and chi‐square for trend in analyses of changes over time.
RESULTS
There were no statistically significant differences in socio‐demographic characteristics or sexual behaviours at enrolment, indicating that randomization achieved adequate comparability between the study arms (Table 1).
| Characteristics, behaviours | Intervention arm, n (%) | Control arm, n (%) | P |
|---|---|---|---|
| All | 2210 (100) | 2246 (100) | |
| Age, years | |||
| 15–19 | 465 (21.0) | 488 (21.7) | 0.56 |
| 20–24 | 643 (29.1) | 648 (28.9) | |
| 25–29 | 434 (19.6) | 468 (20.1) | |
| 30–49 | 668 (30.2) | 642 (28.6) | |
| Religion | |||
| Catholic | 1485 (67.2) | 1551 (69.1) | 0.81 |
| Protestant | 588 (26.6) | 558 (24.8) | |
| Muslim | 98 (4.4) | 96 (4.3) | |
| Saved | 14 (0.6) | 13 (0.6) | |
| None/Other | 25 (1.1) | 28 (1.2) | |
| Marital status | |||
| Currently married | 1167 (52.8) | 1173 (52.2) | 0.31 |
| Previously married | 146 (6.6) | 127 (5.6) | |
| Never married | 897 (40.6) | 946 (42.1) | |
| Education | |||
| None | 133 (6.0) | 140 (6.2) | 0.67 |
| Primary | 1477 (66.8) | 1491 (66.4) | |
| Secondary | 506 (22.9) | 503 (22.4) | |
| Tertiary | 94 (4.3) | 112 (5.0) | |
| Sex partners in past year | |||
| 0 | 223 (10.1) | 220 (9.8) | 0.57 |
| 1 | 1162 (52.6) | 1153 (51.3) | |
| 2+ | 825 (37.3) | 873 (38.9) | |
Table 2 shows the rates of reported sexual satisfaction and function by study arm and follow‐up visit. Problems with sexual satisfaction and function were rare (<2%) at all time points. At baseline, 98.4% (4384/4456) of men reported their sexual desire as ‘medium or high’ and 98.2% said they were sexually ‘satisfied or very satisfied.’ At the time of enrolment, there were no statistically significant differences between the study arms in the frequency of low sexual desire (P = 0.26), lack of sexual satisfaction (P = 0.37), ability to achieve or maintain an erection (P = 0.07), vaginal penetration (P = 0.2), ejaculation (P = 0.9), and penile pain during or after sexual intercourse (P = 0.9) (Table 2).
| Study arm and sexual function | Enrollment n/N (%) | Follow‐up, n/N (%) | P * | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6 months | 1 year | 2 years | |||
| Medium/high self‐described sexual desire | |||||
| Control | 2205/2246 (98.2) | 2041/2075(98.34) | 1965/1991(98.7) | 746/753(99.1) | 0.05 |
| Intervention | 2179/2210(98.6) | 1981/2009(98.6) | 1954/1973(99.0) | 741/746(99.3) | 0.06 |
| Difference between arms, P | 0.26 | 0.52 | 0.37 | 0.57 | |
| Sexual satisfaction rated as satisfied or very satisfied | |||||
| Control | 1910/1948 (98.1) | 1738/1748 (99.4) | 1701/1706 (99.7) | 689/690 (99.9) | <0.001 |
| Intervention | 1880/1908 (98.5) | 1714/1729 (99.1) | 1697/1715 (99.0) | 676/687 (98.4) | 0.81 |
| 0.37 | 0.30 | 0.007 | 0.004 | ||
| No difficulty to achieve and maintain an erection | |||||
| Control | 2211/2246 (98.4) | 2056/2075 (99.1) | 1986/1991 (99.8) | 752/753 (99.9) | <0.001 |
| Intervention | 2189/2210 (99.1) | 1987/2009 (98.9) | 1962/1973 (99.4) | 744/746 (99.7) | 0.03 |
| 0.07 | 0.57 | 0.13 | 0.56 | ||
| No difficulty with vaginal penetration | |||||
| Control | 2200/2246 (98.0) | 1737/1748 (99.4) | 1699/1706 (99.6) | 689/690 (99.9) | <0.001 |
| Intervention | 2176/2210 (98.5) | 1704/1729 (98.6) | 1712/1715 (99.8) | 681/685 (99.4) | <0.001 |
| 0.20 | 0.02 | 0.20 | 0.18 | ||
| No difficulty with ejaculation | |||||
| Control | 1935/1947 (99.4) | 1740/1747 (99.6) | 1704/1706 (99.9) | 689/690 (99.9) | 0.01 |
| Intervention | 1897/1908 (99.4) | 1722/1729 (99.6) | 1712/1715 (99.8) | 683/685 (99.7) | 0.08 |
| 0.87 | 0.99 | 0.66 | 0.56 | ||
| No pain during or after intercourse | |||||
| Control | 1923/1947 (98.8) | 1727/1748 (98.8) | 1691/1706 (99.1) | 687/690 (99.6) | 0.07 |
| Intervention | 1887/1910 (98.8) | 1719/1729 (99.4) | 1707/1715 (99.5) | 684/685 (99.9) | <0.001 |
| 0.93 | 0.05 | 0.14 | 0.32 | ||
- * Chi‐square for trend.
The frequency of most problems related to sexual desire, satisfaction and function remained unchanged or diminished over time during follow‐up. Of note, 0.8% of circumcised men reported erectile problems at enrolment and 0.3% reported such problems at the 2‐year follow‐up. At enrolment, 1.5% of circumcised men reported difficulties with penetration and this diminished to 0.6% over 2 years (P < 0.001). At enrolment 1.2% of the intervention arm men experienced dyspareunia, and this declined significantly to 0.1% 2 years after circumcision (P < 0.001). There were also significant temporal declines in these problems among uncircumcised controls. There were no statistically significant differences between the study arms in reported sexual desire, the ability to achieve or maintain an erection, and normal ejaculation during follow up (Table 2). At the 6 month visit there was a small but statistically significant difference in problems with penetration and pain. Normal vaginal penetration was reported by 98.6% of circumcised men and 99.4% of uncircumcised men (P = 0.02), but there were no differences in penetration at subsequent visits. Also, at 6 months, 99.4% of circumcised men and 98.8% of controls reported no pain during or after intercourse (P = 0.05), and there were no significant differences between the study arms at later visits. Thus, these minor differentials were transient and confined to the first 6 months after surgery.
The control arm participants reported a modest increase in sexual satisfaction over time from 98.0% at enrolment to 99.9% at the 24 months follow‐up (chi‐square for trend, P < 0.001). However, such temporal trends did not occur among circumcised men in whom sexual satisfaction was 98.5% at enrolment and 98.4% after 24 months. As a consequence of the slight increase in reported satisfaction among the controls and the unchanged levels in the circumcised men, the differences in self‐reported sexual satisfaction between the intervention and control arms were statistically significant at 12 months (98.9% vs 99.7%, respectively, P = 0.007) and at 24 months (98.4% vs 99.9%, respectively, P = 0.004). However, the absolute differences in the rates of sexual satisfaction between the study arms were minor (0.8% at 12 months, and 1.5% at 24 months).
DISCUSSION
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first randomized trial to report on prospective examination of the effect of adult male circumcision on sexual satisfaction and function. The proportion of men reporting sexual dissatisfaction or sexual dysfunction in this population was low (<2%), whereas in the Kenyan trial, 7% of men in both study arms reported erectile dysfunction at enrolment [10].
During the follow‐up, there were no statistically significant differences between the study arms in reported sexual desire, erectile function and ejaculation, and the frequency of men reporting normal function increased over time in both study arms (Table 2). There was a small but statistically significant increase in reported sexual satisfaction among the control men, but no significant change over time was reported by the intervention arm men (Table 2). This resulted in small but statistically significant differences in satisfaction between the study arms at follow‐up. We have no explanation for these divergent trends in sexual satisfaction, which could have occurred by chance. Also, given the very large sample sizes in this trial, even small absolute differences of no clinical relevance may achieve statistical significance.
Previous observational studies examined the effect of circumcision on sexual pleasure and function, but most had small sample sizes, short follow‐up times, or assessed highly selected populations circumcised for pre‐existing medical or religious reasons, or recruited participants in response to anti‐circumcision newsletters. These studies reported contradictory results and cannot be interpreted [1-8].
The modest temporal trends of improvement in sexual difficulties in both study arms may be due to the health education and medical care provided during the trial. Men who reported any sexual problems were referred to medical officers or a urologist for management. Many of the reported sexual problems were of a psycho‐social nature, which could be managed by counselling. Thus, programmes providing circumcision for HIV prevention need to train personnel to manage or refer sexual problems. The declines in sexual problems in both arms over time emphasizes the need to assess these factors in randomized trials, because if observations were confined to circumcised men alone, one might falsely conclude that surgery led to diminished difficulties with erection, penetration and dyspareunia (Table 2), whereas comparable trends among control participants suggest that this cannot be attributed to circumcision per se.
A significantly higher proportion of men in the circumcision than the control arm reported difficulty with penetration in the first 6 months after circumcision, although the differences were minor (0.8%). This might be due to incomplete keratinization of the scar, and there were no differences between the study arms at 12 and 24 months after surgery suggesting any problem was transient. Thus, studies of sexual dissatisfaction or dysfunction related to circumcision must allow sufficient time for scar formation to be completed, and men should be forewarned that, in a small minority of cases, they may experience some temporary difficulty with penetration. Many observational studies assessed sexual function at <6 months after surgery and therefore might observe higher rates of dissatisfaction or dysfunction due to incomplete scar keratinization. Circumcised men reported significantly less dyspareunia at 6 months, as has been reported in some observational studies [5]. The lower rates of dyspareunia after circumcision may be due to reduced rates of phimosis, para‐phimosis and genital ulceration, which are less frequent in circumcised men and which may be associated with pain on intercourse [6, 7].
There are limitations to the present study. Questions regarding sexual desire or satisfaction are, of necessity, subjective and refer to the individual’s self‐perception. The questionnaire focused on difficulties with sexual function and did not ascertain more subjective aspects of sexual satisfaction such as changes in time to ejaculation, subjective intensity of orgasm or the partner’s satisfaction with intercourse [19]. Also, circumcision status could not be completely concealed from the interviewers so there is a theoretical possibility that interviewer bias might affect participant response.
Understanding how circumcision affects sexual pleasure is important in formulating public health messages to promote the acceptability of circumcision as an HIV‐prevention strategy. In KwaZulu Natal, South Africa, those men who thought that circumcised men enjoy sex more than uncircumcised men were seven times more willing to be circumcised, and men who thought that women enjoy sex more with circumcised men were over five times more willing to have the procedure [15]. In Uganda, Koenig et al. [16] noted that sexual dissatisfaction can be grounds for marital dissolution or extramarital relationships for both men and women, and Philpott et al. [17] have stressed the importance of incorporating discussions of sexual pleasure into effective public health messaging strategies. Thus, our findings that circumcision had no adverse effects on sexual satisfaction or function are reassuring and provide important information for future programmes.
In conclusion, >98% of men reported sexual satisfaction and normal sexual function after circumcision in this rural population and we conclude that adult male circumcision does not have clinically significant deleterious effects on sexual pleasure or function at 2‐years’ follow‐up in a rural Ugandan population aged 15–49 years.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Melanie Beacon is an employee of the sponsor. Source of funding: NIH.
Appendix
QUESTIONS ON SEXUAL SATISFACTION
I would like to ask you questions about sexual experience.
Sexual desire refers to a feeling that may include wanting to have sexual intercourse or thinking about having sex. How has your level of sexual desire generally been? (PROMPTED)
| None at all | 1 |
| Low | 2 |
| Medium | 3 |
| High | 4 |
In the past 6 months, have you experienced difficulty in inserting your penis during intercourse?
| Yes | 1 |
| No | 2 |
If Yes, How frequently does this occur? (PROMPTED)
| Rarely | 1 |
| Frequently | 3 |
| Occasionally | 2 |
| Always | 4 |
In the past 6 months, have you had difficulty in ejaculating when you had sex?
| Yes | 1 |
| No | 2 |
In the past 6 months how often have you had a problem regaining erection after ejaculation? (PROMPTED)
| Never | 1 |
| Sometimes | 2 |
| Always | 3 |
In the past 6 months have you experienced pain in your penis during or after intercourse?
| Yes | 1 |
| No | 2 |
If Yes, How frequently does this occur? (PROMPTED)
| Rarely | 1 |
| Occasionally | 2 |
| Frequently | 3 |
| Always | 4 |
| No response/don’t | 7 |
| Know |
Is the pain severe, moderate or mild/minor?
| Mild/minor | 1 |
| Moderate | 2 |
| Severe | 3 |
Over the past 6 months, how would you generally rate your satisfaction with sexual intercourse? Do you feel; (PROMPTED)
| Very satisfied | 1 |
| Satisfied | 2 |
| Dissatisfied | 3 |
| Very dissatisfied | 5 |
| No response | 9 |
| Other (specify) | 6 |
| Specify __________________________. | |
If dissatisfied (coded 3 or 5 above) what was the nature of your dissatisfaction?
| Yes | No | |
|---|---|---|
| Level of sexual desire | 1 | 2 |
| Getting erections | 1 | 2 |
| Maintain erection longer | 1 | 2 |
| Problem of insertion | 1 | 2 |
| Prolonged interval between orgasms | 1 | 2 |
| Difficult in ejaculation | 1 | 2 |
| Pain on intercourse | 1 | 2 |
| Spouse complaints about my sexual performance | 1 | 2 |
| Other (specify) | 1 | 2 |
| Specify __________________________. | ||
Notes :
- * Chi‐square for trend.
Number of times cited: 69
- Sanyukta Mathur, Margo Mullinax and John S. Santelli, Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Infections Among Adolescents, International Handbook on Adolescent Health and Development, 10.1007/978-3-319-40743-2_10, (183-205), (2016).
- Jennifer A. Bossio and Caroline F. Pukall, Attitude Toward One’s Circumcision Status Is More Important than Actual Circumcision Status for Men’s Body Image and Sexual Functioning, Archives of Sexual Behavior, (2017).
- Pamela S. Lilleston, Arik V. Marcell, Neema Nakyanjo, Lori Leonard and Maria J. Wawer, Multilevel influences on acceptance of medical male circumcision in Rakai District, Uganda, AIDS Care, 29, 8, (1049), (2017).
- Marco Vella, Alberto Abrate, Antonina Argo and Alchiede Simonato, Circumcision and Sexually Transmitted Disease Prevention: Evidence and Reticence, Fundamentals of Sexually Transmitted Infections, 10.5772/intechopen.68644, (2017).
- M. Galukande, F. Nakaggwa, E. Busisa, D. Sekavuga Bbaale, T. Nagaddya and A. Coutinho, Long term post PrePex male circumcision outcomes in an urban population in Uganda: a cohort study, BMC Research Notes, 10, 1, (2017).
- Maximo O. Brito, Shaveta Khosla, Sheewin Pananookooln, Paul J. Fleming, Leonel Lerebours, Yeycy Donastorg and Robert C. Bailey, Sexual Pleasure and Function, Coital Trauma, and Sex Behaviors After Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision Among Men in the Dominican Republic, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 14, 4, (526), (2017).
- Brian J. Morris, Richard G. Wamai, John N. Krieger, Joya Banerjee and Jeffrey D. Klausner, Male circumcision to prevent syphilis in 1855 and HIV in 1986 is supported by the accumulated scientific evidence to 2015: Response to Darby, Global Public Health, 12, 10, (1315), (2017).
- David Albert Jones, Infant male circumcision: A Catholic theological and bioethical analysis, The Linacre Quarterly, (1), (2017).
- Monica P.C. Nordstrom, Nelli Westercamp, Walter Jaoko, Timothy Okeyo and Robert C. Bailey, Medical Male Circumcision Is Associated With Improvements in Pain During Intercourse and Sexual Satisfaction in Kenya, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 14, 4, (601), (2017).
- B. Friedman, J. Khoury, N. Petersiel, T. Yahalomi, M. Paul and A. Neuberger, Pros and cons of circumcision: an evidence-based overview, Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 22, 9, (768), (2016).
- Brian J Morris, John N Krieger and Jeffrey D Klausner, Critical evaluation of unscientific arguments disparaging affirmative infant male circumcision policy, World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics, 5, 3, (251), (2016).
- Jennifer A Bossio, Caroline F. Pukall and Stephen Steele, Response to: The Literature Supports Policies Promoting Neonatal Male Circumcision in N. America, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12, 5, (1306-1307), (2015).
- R. Zulu, D. Jones, N. Chitalu, R. Cook and S. Weiss, Sexual Satisfaction, Performance, and Partner Response Following Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision in Zambia: The Spear and Shield Project, Global Health: Science and Practice, 3, 4, (606), (2015).
- Evans Chinkoyo and Michael Pather, Erectile function in circumcised and uncircumcised men in Lusaka, Zambia: A cross-sectional study, African Journal of Primary Health Care & Family Medicine, 7, 1, (2015).
- Brian D Earp, Letters to the Editor, Paediatrics & Child Health, 20, 8, (433), (2015).
- S Todd Sorokan, Jane C Finlay and Ann L Jefferies, La circoncision néonatale, Paediatrics & Child Health, 20, 6, (316), (2015).
- Brian J. Morris and John N. Krieger, Male Circumcision Does Not Reduce Sexual Function, Sensitivity or Satisfaction, Advances in Sexual Medicine, 05, 03, (53), (2015).
- Richard G. Wamai, Brian J. Morris, Robert C. Bailey, Jeffrey D. Klausner and Mackenzie N. Boedicker, Male circumcision for protection against HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: The evidence in favour justifies the implementation now in progress, Global Public Health, 10, 5-6, (639), (2015).
- S Todd Sorokan, Jane C Finlay and Ann L Jefferies, Newborn male circumcision, Paediatrics & Child Health, 20, 6, (311), (2015).
- Virginia Homfray, Clare Tanton, Kirstin R. Mitchell, Robert F. Miller, Nigel Field, Wendy Macdowall, Kaye Wellings, Pam Sonnenberg, Anne M. Johnson and Catherine H. Mercer, Examining the association between male circumcision and sexual function, AIDS, 29, 11, (1411), (2015).
- Allan J. Jacobs and Kavita Shah Arora, Ritual Male Infant Circumcision and Human Rights, The American Journal of Bioethics, 15, 2, (30), (2015).
- Jennifer A. Bossio, Caroline F. Pukall and Stephen Steele, A Review of the Current State of the Male Circumcision Literature, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 11, 12, (2847-2864), (2014).
- Brian J Morris, Aaron A R Tobian, Catherine A Hankins, Jeffrey D Klausner, Joya Banerjee, Stefan A Bailis, Stephen Moses and Thomas E Wiswell, Veracity and rhetoric in paediatric medicine: a critique of Svoboda and Van Howe's response to the AAP policy on infant male circumcision, Journal of Medical Ethics, 40, 7, (463), (2014).
- B F Alp, S Uguz, E Malkoc, F Ates, F Dursun, S Okcelik, H Kocoglu and A K Karademir, Does circumcision have a relationship with ejaculation time? Premature ejaculation evaluated using new diagnostic tools, International Journal of Impotence Research, 26, 4, (121), (2014).
- J. Dias, R. Freitas, R. Amorim, P. Espiridião, L. Xambre and L. Ferraz, Adult circumcision and male sexual health: a retrospective analysis, Andrologia, 46, 5, (459-464), (2013).
- Ming-Hsin Yang, Chih-Wei Tsao, Sheng-Tang Wu, Feng-Ping Chuang, En Meng, Shou-Hung Tang, Guang-Huan Sun, Dah-Shyong Yu, Sun-Yran Chang and Tai-Lung Cha, The effect of circumcision on young adult sexual function, The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences, 30, 6, (305), (2014).
- Brian J. Morris, John N. Krieger and Godfrey Kigozi, Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort, BJU International, 111, 5, (E269-E270), (2013).
- Guy A. Bronselaer, Justine M. Schober, Heino F.L. Meyer‐Bahlburg, Guy T'Sjoen, Robert Vlietinck and Piet B. Hoebeke, Male circumcision decreases penile sensitivity as measured in a large cohort, BJU International, 111, 5, (820-827), (2013).
- Stephanie A. Sanders, Debby Herbenick, Michael Reece, Vanessa Schick, Margo Mullinax, Brian Dodge and J. Dennis Fortenberry, The Development and Validation of a Brief Quality of Sexual Experience (QSE) Scale: Results from a Nationally Representative Sample of Men and Women in the United States, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10, 10, (2409-2417), (2013).
- Brian J. Morris and John N. Krieger, Does Male Circumcision Affect Sexual Function, Sensitivity, or Satisfaction?—A Systematic Review, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10, 11, (2644-2657), (2013).
- Ye Tian, Wei Liu, Jian-Zhong Wang, Romel Wazir, Xuan Yue and Kun-Jie Wang, Effects of circumcision on male sexual functions: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Asian Journal of Andrology, 15, 5, (662), (2013).
- Ruth T. Mielke, Counseling Parents Who Are Considering Newborn Male Circumcision, Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health, 58, 6, (671-682), (2013).
- Aaron A.R. Tobian and Thomas C. Quinn, Male Circumcision, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 10.1016/B978-0-12-391059-2.00006-1, (147-164), (2013).
- B. Hoschke, S. Fenske, S. Brookman-May, I. Spivak, C. Gilfrich, H.-M. Fritsche, I. Wolff and M. May, Die männliche Zirkumzision ist nicht mit einer höheren Prävalenz der erektilen Dysfunktion assoziiert, Der Urologe, 52, 4, (562), (2013).
- David Benatar, Evaluations of circumcision should be circumscribed by the evidence, Journal of Medical Ethics, 39, 7, (431), (2013).
- Maria Kristiansen and Aziz Sheikh, Legislation on male infant circumcision in Europe: a call to avoid paternalism and to promote evidence-based, patient-centred care, Global Discourse, 3, 2, (342), (2013).
- J.-N. Dauendorffer, C. Renaud-Vilmer, M. Bagot and B. Cavelier-Balloy, Pénodynie secondaire à une posthectomie, Annales de Dermatologie et de Vénéréologie, 139, 8-9, (566), (2012).
- Brian J Morris, Jake H Waskett and Ronald H Gray, Does sexual function survey in Denmark offer any support for male circumcision having an adverse effect?, International Journal of Epidemiology, 41, 1, (310), (2012).
- Brian J. Morris, Alex D. Wodak, Adrian Mindel, Leslie Schrieber, Karen A. Duggan, Anthony Dilley, Robin J. Willcourt, Michael Lowy, David A. Cooper, Eugenie R. Lumbers, C. Terry Russell and Stephen R. Leeder, Infant male circumcision: An evidence-based policy statement, Open Journal of Preventive Medicine, 02, 01, (79), (2012).
- Brian J. Morris, Robert C. Bailey, Jeffrey D. Klausner, Arleen Leibowitz, Richard G. Wamai, Jake H. Waskett, Joya Banerjee, Daniel T. Halperin, Laurie Zoloth, Helen A. Weiss and Catherine A. Hankins, Review: A critical evaluation of arguments opposing male circumcision for HIV prevention in developed countries, AIDS Care, 24, 12, (1565), (2012).
- Brian J Morris, Jake H Waskett, Joya Banerjee, Richard G Wamai, Aaron AR Tobian, Ronald H Gray, Stefan A Bailis, Robert C Bailey, Jeffrey D Klausner, Robin J Willcourt, Daniel T Halperin, Thomas E Wiswell and Adrian Mindel, A 'snip' in time: what is the best age to circumcise?, BMC Pediatrics, 12, 1, (2012).
- Morten Frisch, Author's Response to: Does sexual function survey in Denmark offer any support for male circumcision having an adverse effect?, International Journal of Epidemiology, 41, 1, (312), (2012).
- David J. Wilkinson, Nick Lansdale, Lucy H. Everitt, Sean S. Marven, Jenny Walker, Rang N. Shawis, J.P. Roberts, A.E. Mackinnon and P.P. Godbole, Foreskin preputioplasty and intralesional triamcinolone: a valid alternative to circumcision for balanitis xerotica obliterans, Journal of Pediatric Surgery, 47, 4, (756), (2012).
- Edith AM Tarimo, Joel M Francis, Deodatus Kakoko, Patricia Munseri, Muhammad Bakari and Eric Sandstrom, The perceptions on male circumcision as a preventive measure against HIV infection and considerations in scaling up of the services: a qualitative study among police officers in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, BMC Public Health, 12, 1, (2012).
- Matthew Westercamp, Kawango E. Agot, Jeckoniah Ndinya-Achola and Robert C. Bailey, Circumcision preference among women and uncircumcised men prior to scale-up of male circumcision for HIV prevention in Kisumu, Kenya, AIDS Care, (1), (2011).
- Hossein Sadeghi‐Nejad, Marlene Wasserman, Wolfgang Weidner, Daniel Richardson and David Goldmeier, Sexually Transmitted Diseases and Sexual Function, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 7, 1pt2, (389-413), (2010).
- Natasha Larke, Male circumcision, HIV and sexually transmitted infections: a review, British Journal of Nursing, 19, 10, (629), (2010).
- Sean M. Doyle, James G. Kahn, Nap Hosang and Peter R. Carroll, The Impact of Male Circumcision on HIV Transmission, The Journal of Urology, 183, 1, (21), (2010).
- Helen A Weiss, Kim E Dickson, Kawango Agot and Catherine A Hankins, Male circumcision for HIV prevention: current research and programmatic issues, AIDS, 24, Suppl 4, (S61), (2010).
- Paul F Austin, Circumcision, Current Opinion in Urology, 20, 4, (318), (2010).
- Dawn K. Smith, Allan Taylor, Peter H. Kilmarx, Patrick Sullivan, Lee Warner, Mary Kamb, Naomi Bock, Bob Kohmescher and Timothy D. Mastro, Male Circumcision in the United States for the Prevention of HIV Infection and other Adverse Health Outcomes: Report from a CDC Consultation, Public Health Reports, 125, 1_suppl, (72), (2010).
- Tim Hargreave, Male circumcision: towards a World Health Organisation normative practice in resource limited settings, Asian Journal of Andrology, 12, 5, (628), (2010).
- David J Templeton, Male circumcision to reduce sexual transmission of HIV, Current Opinion in HIV and AIDS, 5, 4, (344), (2010).
- Guy de Bruyn, Neil A Martinson and Glenda E Gray, Male circumcision for HIV prevention: developments from sub-Saharan Africa, Expert Review of Anti-infective Therapy, 8, 1, (23), (2010).
- Caryn L. Perera, Franklin H.G. Bridgewater, Prema Thavaneswaran and Guy J. Maddern, Nontherapeutic Male Circumcision: Tackling the Difficult Issues, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6, 8, (2237-2243), (2009).
- Godfrey Kigozi, Ivan Lukabwe, Joseph Kagaayi, Maria J. Wawer, Betty Nantume, Grace Kigozi, Fred Nalugoda, Noah Kiwanuka, Fred Wabwire‐Mangen, David Serwadda, Renee Ridzon, Dennis Buwembo, Dorothy Nabukenya, Stephen Watya, Tom Lutalo, James Nkale and Ronald H. Gray, Sexual satisfaction of women partners of circumcised men in a randomized trial of male circumcision in Rakai, Uganda, BJU International, 104, 11, (1698-1701), (2009).
- Paul F Austin, Is neonatal circumcision clinically beneficial? Argument in favor, Nature Clinical Practice Urology, 6, 1, (16), (2009).
- Ronald Gray, David Serwadda, Godfrey Kigozi and Maria J. Wawer, Male circumcision and HIV prevention, HIV Prevention, 10.1016/B978-0-12-374235-3.00006-6, (146-166), (2009).
- Patrick W Mallon and William G Powderly, Management of late presentation in HIV: what the data tell us, HIV Therapy, 3, 5, (423), (2009).
- Peter H Kilmarx, Katrina Kretsinger and Gregorio A Millett, Considerations in the role of male circumcision in the prevention of HIV transmission in the USA, HIV Therapy, 3, 3, (241), (2009).
- Stephen Shei-Dei Yang, Cheng-Hsing Hsieh and Shang-Jen Chang, Effects of Circumcision on urinary Tract Infection and Sexually Transmitted Disease, Tzu Chi Medical Journal, 21, 3, (185), (2009).
- John N. Krieger, Supriya D. Mehta, Robert C. Bailey, Kawango Agot, Jeckoniah O. Ndinya‐Achola, Corette Parker and Stephen Moses, ORIGINAL RESEARCH—MEN'S SEXUAL HEALTH: Adult Male Circumcision: Effects on Sexual Function and Sexual Satisfaction in Kisumu, Kenya, The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 5, 11, (2610-2622), (2008).
- JOHN M. FITZPATRICK, Editor's Comment, BJU International, 101, 10, (i-i), (2008).
- Marwan Daar, THE EFFECT OF MALE CIRCUMCISION ON SEXUAL SATISFACTION AND FUNCTION: RESULTS FROM A RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF MALE CIRCUMCISION FOR HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS PREVENTION, RAKAI, UGANDA, BJU International, 101, 10, (1323-1323), (2008).
- Kasonde Bowa, THE EFFECT OF MALE CIRCUMCISION ON SEXUAL SATISFACTION AND FUNCTION: RESULTS FROM A RANDOMIZED TRIAL OF MALE CIRCUMCISION FOR HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS PREVENTION, RAKAI, UGANDA, BJU International, 102, 6, (762-763), (2008).
- , Adult male circumcision does not reduce sexual satisfaction and performance, Nature Clinical Practice Urology, 5, 3, (126), (2008).
- Ronald H. Gray, Maria J. Wawer, Chelsea B. Polis, Godfrey Kigozi and David Serwadda, Male circumcision and prevention of HIV and sexually transmitted infections, Current Infectious Disease Reports, 10, 2, (121), (2008).
- Christy M. McKinney, Ellen J. Klingler, Rachel Paneth-Pollak, Julia A. Schillinger, R Charon Gwynn and Thomas R. Frieden, Prevalence of Adult Male Circumcision in the General Population and a Population at Increased Risk for HIV/AIDS in New York City, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 35, 9, (814), (2008).
- Swetha Prabhakaran, Damir Ljuhar, Robert Coleman and Ramesh M Nataraja, Circumcision in the paediatric patient: A review of indications, technique and complications, Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, , (2018).




