Даёшь обрезание?

[Mikhail-u]

БОЛь способен ощущать не только взрослый человек, но и новорожденный. Если он не способен заявить о боли, ето не значит что ему не больно было. ;) Что значит "просто испуглалось"? Может испугалось боли? ;)

Я здесь тоже не спорю практически так как мне просто не интересно ето, но коль вы меня уж квотнули, то вы етим ввязываетесь со мною в спор и вынуждаете меня отвечать в ответ, что я и делаю. Не принимайте ето за желание с вами поспорить.

Он очень даже способен заявить, так заорет, что на стенку полезете. А раз не орет - значит не так уж больно.

[FOLEY]

Он очень даже способен заявить, так заорет, что на стенку полезете. А раз не орет - значит не так уж больно.

ты не прав...больно как раз. нейрорадиология это показала...

[Koza]

Ага..читай выше Я именно оттуда заключения и выставил А то что в красном...заметка от ЦИРПа...это не есть исследование. Так же ненадо приплетать Автсралийские мнения...




Да и опять таки....в первом же предложении написано про бенефит.

Странно вы заключения выставляете, пишити тогда уж всё, а не вырывайте то что вам по душе. А впрочем, делайте как хотите. Материал там написан доступным языком, кто захочет, тот прочитает и выводы сделает.
Вон, там народ ещё интересных ссылочек подкинул.
Удачи.

[FOLEY]

Ага...ладно проехали.

[dream fairy]

ты не прав...больно как раз. нейрорадиология это показала...

Какая нейрорадиология? Мы что теперь больно или нет ребёнку по нейрорадиологии определяем, а не по старинке: плачет значит больно, не плачет значит не больно?

[FOLEY]

Какая нейрорадиология? Мы что теперь больно или нет ребёнку по нейрорадиологии определяем, а не по старинке: плачет значит больно, не плачет значит не больно?

понимаешь...по старинке это одно...а чтоб квантифицировать надо не просто по бабушкиному методу. ребенок в младенческом возрасте еще не способен так орать как ты...он же орет одинаково когда ему хочется есть...когда не больно...и когда ему обрезание делают...причем при обрезании орет буквально секунды, а когда голоден - может и час.

[FOLEY]

Некоторые абстракты...т.е. САМИ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ...а не интерпретация:

TI - A perspective on controversies over neonatal circumcision.
AU - Weiss GN; Weiss EB
SO - Clin Pediatr (Phila) 1994 Dec;33(12):726-30.

Controversy continues to surround the issue of male circumcision, especially in the United States. The following report reviews the history of this practice, along with the medical and sociopolitical positions currently espoused. It is our conclusion that, as the safest and most commonly performed surgical procedure in this country, the benefits of posthetomy, which include a reduction in some kinds of cancer and sexually transmitted diseases, well outweigh the risks cited by those who oppose it.



TI - American Academy of Pediatrics: Report of the Task Force on Circumcision.
SO - Pediatrics 1989 Aug;84(2):388-91.

Properly performed newborn circumcision prevents phimosis, paraphimosis, and balanoposthitis and has been shown to decrease the incidence of cancer of the penis among US men. It may result in a decreased incidence of urinary tract infection. However, in the absence of well-designed prospective studies, conclusions regarding the relationship of urinary tract infection to circumcision are tentative. An increased incidence of cancer of the cervix has been found in sexual partners of uncircumcised men infected with human papillomavirus. Evidence concerning the association of sexually transmitted diseases and circumcision is conflicting. Newborn circumcision is a rapid and generally safe procedure when performed by an experienced operator. It is an elective procedure to be performed only if an infant is stable and healthy. Infants respond to the procedure with transient behavioral and physiologic changes. Local anesthesia (dorsal penile nerve block) may reduce the observed physiologic response to newborn circumcision. It also has its own inherent risks. However, reports of extensive experience or follow-up with the technique in newborns are lacking. Newborn circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks. When circumcision is being considered, the benefits and risks should be explained to the parents and informed consent obtained.
This citation has no abstract


TI - The increasing incidence of newborn circumcision: data from the nationwide inpatient sample.
AU - Nelson CP; Dunn R; Wan J; Wei JT
SO - J Urol 2005 Mar;173(3):978-81.

PURPOSE: Newborn circumcision is the most common surgical procedure in the United States, yet there are few contemporary data regarding circumcision rates or the factors that affect these rates. The goal of this study was to determine trends in the national rate of newborn circumcision between 1988 and 2000, and to evaluate patient and hospital factors associated with newborn circumcision. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample provides information on 5 million to 7 million inpatient stays per year. Newborn male hospitalizations were selected, and those newborns who underwent circumcision were identified using International Classification of Disease-9 procedure codes. Weighted national estimates of circumcision rates were calculated, and patient and hospital characteristics were examined to identify factors associated with newborn circumcision. RESULTS: We identified 4,657,402 newborn male hospitalizations during a 13-year period. Circumcision rates increased significantly with time-48.3% of newborn males underwent circumcision in 1988 to 1991 vs 61.1% in 1997 to 2000 (p <0.0001). In multivariate regression analysis the odds of circumcision increased by 6.8% per year during the study period (p <0.0001). Patient characteristics associated with increased odds of circumcision in the multivariate model included private insurance (p <0.0001), higher socioeconomic status (p <0.0001), fewer co-morbid diagnoses (p <0.0001) and black race (p <0.0001). Hospital factors associated with increased odds of circumcision included Northeast or Midwest geographic region and rural location. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant increase in the rate of newborn circumcision between 1988 and 2000.(Для Дрим Фэри) The increase may be related to increased recognition of the potential medical benefits of circumcision. However, the increase may also result in a higher incidence of surgical complications of circumcision.



TI - Circumcision in the United States. Prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice.
AU - Laumann EO; Masi CM; Zuckerman EW
SO - JAMA 1997 Apr 2;277(13):1052-7.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of circumcision across various social groups and examine the health and sexual outcomes of circumcision. DESIGN: An analysis of data from the National Health and Social Life Survey. PARTICIPANTS: A national probability sample of 1410 American men aged 18 to 59 years at the time of the survey. In addition, an oversample of black and Hispanic minority groups is included in comparative analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The contraction of sexually transmitted diseases, the experience of sexual dysfunction, and experience with a series of sexual practices. RESULTS: We find no significant differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men in their likelihood of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. However, uncircumcised men appear slightly more likely to experience sexual dysfunctions, especially later in life. Finally, we find that circumcised men engage in a more elaborated set of sexual practices. This pattern differs across ethnic groups, suggesting the influence of social factors. CONCLUSIONS: The National Health and Social Life Survey evidence indicates a slight benefit of circumcision but a negligible association with most outcomes. These findings inform existing debates on the utility of circumcision. The considerable impact of circumcision status on sexual practice represents a new finding that should further enrich such discussion. Our results support the view that physicians and parents be informed of the potential benefits and risks before circumcising newborns.



TI - Male circumcision: assessment of health benefits and risks.
AU - Moses S; Bailey RC; Ronald AR
SO - Sex Transm Infect 1998 Oct;74(5):368-73.

OBJECTIVES: Globally approximately 25% of men are circumcised for religious, cultural, medical, or parental choice reasons. However, controversy surrounds the procedure, and its benefits and risks to health. We review current knowledge of the health benefits and risks associated with male circumcision. METHODS: We have used, where available, previously conducted reviews of the relation between male circumcision and specific outcomes as "benchmarks", and updated them by searching the Medline database for more recent information. RESULTS: There is substantial evidence that circumcision protects males from HIV infection, penile carcinoma, urinary tract infections, and ulcerative sexually transmitted diseases. We could find little scientific evidence of adverse effects on sexual, psychological, or emotional health. Surgical risks associated with circumcision, particularly bleeding, penile injury, and local infection, as well as the consequences of the pain experienced with neonatal circumcision, are valid concerns that require appropriate responses. CONCLUSION: Further analyses of the utility and cost effectiveness of male circumcision as a preventive health measure should, in the light of this information, be research and policy priorities. A decision as to whether to recommend male circumcision in a given society should be based upon an assessment of the risk for and occurrence of the diseases which are associated with the presence of the foreskin, versus the risk of the complications of the procedure. In order for individuals and their families to make an informed decision, they should be provided with the best available evidence regarding the known benefits and risks.

[dream fairy]

понимаешь...по старинке это одно...а чтоб квантифицировать надо не просто по бабушкиному методу. ребенок в младенческом возрасте еще не способен так орать как ты...он же орет одинаково когда ему хочется есть...когда не больно...и когда ему обрезание делают...причем при обрезании орет буквально секунды, а когда голоден - может и час.

Эээ... ты в отделении новорожденных был? Ещё как орут.
Кстати говорят что от голода орут потому, что живот сводит, тоже больно.
Я обрезание не делала, не знаю, как они там орут, долго или нет, наверное не долго. В госпитале и кровь на анализ берут из пятки, а потом ещё и прививок до кучи. Кто-то орёт, кто-то нет.

[FOLEY]

Эээ... ты в отделении новорожденны был? Ещё как орут.
Кстати говорят что от голода орут потому, что живот сводит, тоже больно.
Я обрезание не делала, не знаю, как они там орут, долго или нет, наверное не долго. В госпитале и кровь на анализ берут из пятки, а потом ещё и прививок до кучи. Кто-то орёт, кто-то нет.

Был И на обрезании был...и сам...хм...ладно.

Я же не отрицаю что орут, наоборот говорю что им больно и что они орут. Но от того что они орут мало...не значит что обрезние легче переноситься чем голод или обписаный дайпер. Я как раз сторонник местной анестезии.

[dream fairy]

Некоторые абстракты...т.е. САМИ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЯ...а не интерпретация: There was a significant increase in the rate of newborn circumcision between 1988 and 2000 .

Ой заколебало меня всё это, одни говорят одно, другие другое.