Indian J Sex Transm Dis Indian J Sex Transm Dis
Official Publication of the Indian Association for the Study of Sexually Transmitted Diseases
Indian J Sex Transm Dis
The Journal | Search | Ahead Of Print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Subscribe | Login    Users online: 373   Home Email this page Print this page Bookmark this page Decrease font size Default font size Increase font size


 
  Table of Contents  
REVIEW ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 42  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 1-6
 

Male circumcision and Sexually transmitted Infections – An update


1 Consultant Dermatologist, SBKS Medical Institute and Research Centre, Vadodara, Gujarat, India
2 Department of Skin and VD, SBKS Medical Institute and Research Centre, Vadodara, Gujarat, India
3 Department of Skin and VD, Baroda Medical College, Vadodara, Gujarat, India

Date of Submission11-Mar-2021
Date of Decision13-Mar-2021
Date of Acceptance18-Mar-2021
Date of Web Publication03-May-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Yogesh S Marfatia
Department of Skin and VD, SBKS Medical Institute and Research Centre, Pipariya, Waghodia, Vadodara - 391 760, Gujarat
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijstd.ijstd_20_21

Rights and Permissions

 

   Abstract 

Role of male circumcision (MC) as a tool to prevent sexually transmitted infections (STIs)/human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was assessed. An attempt was made to search articles related to association between MC and STIs/HIV. A thorough search was carried out to find out quality articles published in indexed specialty journals. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and World Health Organization (WHO) sites were also referred. Warm and moist environment of area under foreskin facilitates some pathogens to persist and replicate. Further, the thinness of foreskin predisposes it to minor trauma and abrasions that facilitate the entry of pathogens. MC reduces HIV infection risk by 50%–60% over time and reduces the risk of men acquiring herpes simplex virus-2 and human papillomavirus (HPV) that can cause penile and other anogenital cancers, by 30%. There is no significant reduction in risk of acquiring syphilis, but reduced risk of acquisition of Haemophilus ducreyi is reported. MC is reported to be beneficial in conditions such as traumatic injury, Balanitis Xerotica Obliterans, refractory balanoposthitis, and chronic, recurrent urinary tract infections. MC also reduces the chances of penile carcinoma by facilitating improved penile hygiene, lowering HPV/HIV transmission rates, and reducing chronic inflammatory conditions such as phimosis and balanitis. MC has been recommended by the WHO and UNAIDS in 2007 as an additional HIV prevention intervention in settings of high HIV prevalence. MC is an important adjunct to safe sex education, condom use, and vaccination (HPV) in reducing the global burden of HIV/STIs-related morbidity and mortality.


Keywords: Centers for Disease Control, female genital mutilation, human immunodeficiency virus, male circumcision, sexually transmitted infections


How to cite this article:
Mehta KS, Marfatia YS, Jain AP, Shah DJ, Baxi DS. Male circumcision and Sexually transmitted Infections – An update. Indian J Sex Transm Dis 2021;42:1-6

How to cite this URL:
Mehta KS, Marfatia YS, Jain AP, Shah DJ, Baxi DS. Male circumcision and Sexually transmitted Infections – An update. Indian J Sex Transm Dis [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Jul 26];42:1-6. Available from: https://www.ijstd.org/text.asp?2021/42/1/1/315385



   Introduction Top


Foreskin and genital health

The foreskin is a part of our phylogenetic heritage. Chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, and other nonhuman primates have prepuces that partially or completely cover the glans penis.[1] The inner surface of foreskin contains modified sebaceous glands that secrete smegma. The area under the foreskin is warm, and moist environment may facilitate some pathogens to persist and replicate, more so if penile hygiene is poor. The inner mucosal surface of the foreskin is only thinly keratinized, compared to the heavily keratinized penile shaft and the outer surface of the foreskin. The thinness of foreskin predisposes it to minor trauma and abrasions that facilitate the entry of pathogens.[2]

Male circumcision

Male circumcision (MC) is the removal of some or the entire foreskin (prepuce) from the penis. The word “circumcision” comes from Latin circum (meaning “around”) and caedere (meaning “to cut”). In Jews, it is performed without anesthesia on the child's 8th day of life, whereas in Muslims between 4 and 13 years of age. There are several advantages of circumcising males at a younger versus older age including a lower risk of complications, faster healing, and a lower cost.

Various studies (support the claim of reduction of the risk of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) to justify neonatal circumcision even today.[3],[4]

A study by Hutson claimed that the risk of urinary tract infection (UTI) had decreased from 7/1000 to 2/1000 after neonatal MC.[5] MC is reported to reduce risk of STIs including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and UTI in infants.

The aim of this article is to review systematically the evidence for an association between MC and ulcerative as well as nonulcerative STIs.


   History Top


Circumcision, a long-standing practice, is one of the most common procedures performed worldwide. It may be performed for religious (Jewish and Islamic faith), cultural (for example, Korean, Turkish, and African groups) or social reasons. Similar observations were reported at a meeting of traditional healers in South Africa in 1992 and in a study of circumcision practices in Mwanza.


   Centers for Disease Control and Prevention–Male Circumcision Recommendations Top


The draft policy recommendations of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention[6] (CDC) (2014) affirmed MC as an important public health measure.

Clinical trials conducted between 2005 and 2010 have demonstrated safety and significant efficacy of voluntary adult MC performed by clinicians for reducing the risk of acquisition of HIV by a male during penile-vaginal sex. Three randomized clinical trials showed that adult MC reduced HIV infection risk by 50%–60% over time and reduced the risk of men acquiring two common STIs, herpes simplex virus type-2 (HSV-2) and types of human papilloma virus (HPV) that can cause penile and other anogenital cancers, by 30%.

CDC recommendations on MC include the following points:

  1. Give parents of newborn boys comprehensive counseling about the benefits and risks of MC
  2. Inform all uncircumcised adolescent and adult males who engage in heterosexual sex about the significant, but partial, efficacy of MC in reducing the risk of acquiring HIV, and some STIs through heterosexual sex, as well as about the potential harms of MC
  3. Inform men who have sex with men (MSM) that while it is biologically plausible that MC could benefit MSM during insertive sex, MC has not been proven to reduce the risk of acquiring HIV or other STIs during anal sex.



   Circumcision and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Top


Studies by Weiss et al. and Ed Susman show a clear evidence that circumcised men are at significantly lower risk of acquiring HIV infection,[7],[8] probably because the inner surface of the foreskin contains numerous Langerhans cells and CD4+ T lymphocytes and also because of the warm, moist environment under the foreskin promoting infection persistence. The latter could also facilitate infection with other sexually transmitted pathogens. The protective effect of circumcision on HIV is especially strong among populations more highly exposed to STIs, suggesting that part of the effect on HIV may be mediated through protection against other STIs that facilitate HIV transmission. The CDC announced in 2007 that there is “sufficient evidence” to inform heterosexually active males about the significant, albeit partial, efficacy of MC in reducing the risk of HIV infection.

MC was recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNAIDS in 2007 as an additional HIV prevention intervention in settings of high HIV prevalence.

Studies conducted by Warner et al. in the USA and Chemtob et al. in Israel showed an inverse association between MC and HIV acquisition.[9],[10] A systematic review of studies conducted in India included 13 observational studies and also similarly showed that circumcision may reduce HIV acquisition by approximately 40%.[11]

Based on the available evidence, two global HIV prevention targets for 2020 also focus on higher coverage of safe MC to achieve maximum impact on HIV incidence. The provision of safe MC services is one of the few HIV interventions that specifically target adolescent boys and men.[12]


   Circumcision and Sexually Transmitted Infections Top


There are conflicting reports on the effect of circumcision on the incidence of STIs. Uncircumcised men may be at increased risk of STIs due to entry of pathogens through the inner surface of the foreskin and frenulum. The physical location of ulcers may also affect the role of circumcision on genital ulcerative diseases. Chancroid frequently occurs on the external and internal surfaces of the foreskin; hence, circumcision may be more protective against chancroid than against syphilis and herpes, where lesions tend to occur more on glans penis.


   Circumcision and Herpes Simplex Virus-2 Top


In contrast to HIV, it has been found that HSV replicates largely in the epithelial cells and also infects Langerhans cells and other dendritic cells, while both stimulate and inhibit their immune function. Circumcision not only results in a smaller surface area for infection but also fewer immune cells to respond against HSV. HSV-2 is shed more widely from the female genital tract than HIV, and there are several portals of entry in female–male transmission besides the foreskin. The role of the foreskin on HSV-2 infection may thus be relatively minor. In a prospective trial on MC and risk of HIV and other STIs in India by Reynolds et al.,[13] it was found that MC had no significant protective effect on the incidence of HSV-2 in HIV seronegative men.

According to meta-analysis by Weiss et al. of ten cohort studies (eight from Africa, one from India, and one from the United States) on association of MC and HSV-2 seropositivity, in which six studies were among men at generally low risk for STIs (general populations and outpatients) and four were among men at higher risk of STIs (bar workers, truck drivers, and sexually transmitted disease clinic attenders); in six studies, circumcised men were at lower risk of HSV-2 seropositivity than uncircumcised men on universal analysis and the association was statistically significant (P = 0.05) in three of these studies.[14],[15]

In the Ugandan and South African, randomized control trials (RCTs) reviewed by Tobian et al., the incidence of HSV-2 was approximately 30% lower among circumcised men.

However, MC did not affect HSV-2 acquisition among female partners.[16]


   Circumcision and Syphilis Top


According to a meta-analysis by Weiss et al.,[15] 14 studies examined the association between MC and serological evidence of syphilis infection from sub-Saharan Africa (9 studies), the United States (2 studies), Australia, India, and Peru, out of which 5 showed statistically significant reduced risk.

On the contrary, a randomized prospective trial including 5534 heterosexual men in Uganda by Tobian et al.[16] reported the impact of circumcision on serological syphilis and found no effect in circumscribed men.

Another RCT, performed on 4761 males in Kenya and Uganda, showed that circumcision was associated with a 42% reduction in the incidence of syphilis. In a subgroup analysis among HIV-infected men, a 62% reduction in the incidence of syphilis was noted, whereas a nonsignificant reduction in the incidence of syphilis was observed among men without HIV.[17]

In a prospective trial on MC and risk of HIV and other STIs in India by Reynolds et al., it was found that MC had no significant protective effect on incident syphilis in HIV seronegative men.[13]

In a systemic review study by Van Howe,[18] out of seven prevalence studies reviewed in heterosexual men, positive association of syphilis in uncircumscribed men was seen primarily in populations at high risk for acquiring STIs, while in general populations, no statistically significant difference was found.


   Circumcsion and Chancroid Top


According to meta-analysis by Weiss et al.,[15] seven studies examined the association between MC and chancroid. Of these, three were from Kenya and the remainder from the United States, the United Kingdom, and the US and Australian military. Six of seven studies found a reduced risk of chancroid among circumcised men, and this was statistically significant in four studies. According to Balachandra and Sathish Pai, uncircumcised men are more susceptible to infection with Haemophilus ducreyi.[19]


   Circumcsion and Human Papilloma Virus Top


In a large RCTs on immediate versus deferred circumcision by Tobian et al. and Gray et al., it was demonstrated that circumcision decreases HPV infection rates among HIV-negative heterosexual men.[20],[21]

In a systemic review study by Van Howe,[18] studies which reported infections with any strain of HPV showed a higher prevalence in uncircumcised men, but the association was not significant. Furthermore, studies on infections with selective high-risk HPV showed no significant difference in the prevalence of HPV on the basis of circumcision status. No significant difference was found in either high-risk populations or general populations. This is in contrary to US CDC's draft circumcision recommendations.


   Circumcision and Gonorrhea and Chlamydia Top


In a cohort study by Diseker et al., uncircumcised men were significantly more likely to have gonorrhea than circumcised men. However, they also reported that there was no association between lack of circumcision and chlamydia infection.[22]

However, as per the study on MC and risk of HIV and other STIs in India by Reynolds et al.,[13] MC had no significant protective effect on the incidence of gonococcal urethritis in HIV seronegative men.

Furthermore, in a systemic review by Van Howe,[18] no significant association was found between the incidence or the prevalence of gonorrhea and circumcision status of males. This was seen in both high-risk and general populations. There was no significant difference in the prevalence of genital chlamydia infections also, but a trend toward a lower prevalence in intact men was noticed.

According to the RCT conducted by Mehta et al., adult MC had no protective effect against any of the nonulcerative STIs examined (Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, or Trichomonas vaginalis infection) in sexually active young men in Kisumu, Kenya.[23] N. gonorrhoeae, C. trachomatis and T. vaginalis infection may bind through multiple ligands and host receptors. Unlike the chlamydia organism, gonococci are not obligate intracellular organisms, and T. vaginalis has complex and multiple methods of adhering to and entering host cells. The preferred host cell site is cuboidal or columnar epithelium (internal to the urethra) for both N. gonorrhoeae and C. trachomatis; thus, it is very unlikely that intact foreskin would provide protection against these infections.


   Circumcision and Nonvenereal Genital Conditions Top


The most common indication for MC is underlying physiologic phimosis or untreatable paraphimosis. It is also practiced in traumatic injury or Balanitis Xerotica Obliterans (BXO) (a risk factor for penile cancer), refractory balanoposthitis, chronic, recurrent UTIs, etc.[24]

[TAG:2]Circumcision and Penile Cancer[24][/TAG:2]

Intact foreskin does not increase the risk of penile cancer. Phimosis is a common finding in men with penile carcinoma. Circumcision facilitates improved penile hygiene and lowers HPV and HIV transmission rates. There is reduction of chronic inflammatory conditions such as phimosis and balanitis. All these factors are likely to reduce the chances of penile carcinoma. Some authors have advocated for universal neonatal MC as a means to prevent penile cancer.


   Impact of MC on Female Partners Top


In a cohort study by Turner et al., it was reported that women with circumcised partners had similar risk of chlamydial, gonococcal, and trichomonal infections as women with uncircumcised partners.[25]

Based on three RCTs conducted in Uganda by Tobian et al., there is strong evidence that MC decreases HPV infection rates in female partners of circumcised HIV-negative males[26] but does not affect HPV transmission among couples when the men are HIV positive. Outside of Africa, a meta-analysis showed that MC is associated with a lower risk of cervical cancer among monogamous female partners of men with multiple sexual partners. However, the risk of HSV and genital mycoplasma infections is probably not reduced in females whose sexual partners have been circumcised.


   Female Circumcision/Female Genital Mutilation Top


Female genital mutilation (FGM) involves the partial or total removal of external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for nonmedical reasons. It is mostly carried out on young girls between infancy and age 15 and is practiced mainly in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. FGM can cause severe bleeding and problems urinating, and later cysts, infections, as well as complications in childbirth and increased risk of newborn deaths.[27]

Female genital mutilation: Cultural, religious, and social causes

The FGM is performed as a result of cultural, religious, and social factors within families and communities. FGM is considered a necessary part of raising a girl properly and to prepare her for adulthood and marriage. FGM is said to ensure proper sexual behavior, premarital virginity, and marital fidelity, and reduced woman's libido. A few recent reviews have suggested that female genital circumcision may increase the risk of HIV.[28] However, other studies have found no statistically significant associations.

The practice has no health benefits for girls and women and is a violation of the human rights of girls and women. The WHO is opposed to all forms of FGM and is opposed to health-care providers performing FGM (medicalization of FGM).


   Take Home Messages Top


  • Practice of MC predates human history and it is performed for religious, cultural, or social reasons
  • The area under the foreskin is warm and moist, and this environment may facilitate some pathogens to persist and replicate. The thinness of foreskin predisposes it to minor trauma and abrasions that facilitate the entry of pathogens
  • MC reduces HIV infection risk by 50%–60% over time and reduces the risk of men acquiring HSV-2 and HPV that can cause penile and other anogenital cancers, by 30%
  • Though adult MC confers protection against HIV infection, it is not protective against nonulcerative STIs. This can be explained on the basis of multiple differences in organism pathogenesis and host immunogenicity. Specific HIV-1 target cells may be protected through increased keratinization resulting from circumcision
  • There was no significant reduction in risk of acquiring syphilis, but reduced risk of acquisition of H. ducreyi is reported
  • MC is reported to be beneficial in conditions such as traumatic injury or BXO (a risk factor for penile cancer), refractory balanoposthitis and chronic, recurrent UTIs
  • MC facilitates improved penile hygiene and lowers HPV and HIV transmission rates. There is reduction of chronic inflammatory conditions such as phimosis and balanitis. All these factors are likely to reduce the chances of penile carcinoma
  • There is strong evidence that MC decreases HPV infection rates in female partners of circumcised HIV-negative males but does not affect HPV transmission among couples when the men are HIV positive. MC is associated with a lower risk of cervical cancer among monogamous female partners of men with multiple sexual partners
  • MC was recommended by the WHO and UNAIDS in 2007 as an additional HIV prevention intervention in settings of high HIV prevalence.


MC is an important adjunct to safe sex education, condom use, and vaccination (HPV) in reducing the global burden of HIV/STIs-related morbidity and mortality.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

Male Circumcision MCQs

  1. Which of the following diseases doesn't have significant reduction in risk of sexual transmission after undergoing MC?


    1. AIDS/HIV
    2. HPV
    3. Syphilis
    4. Haemophilus ducreyi


  2. Which of the following infections tend to have lesions on both external and internal surface of foreskin and are more likely to get benefited with MC?


    1. Gonnorhea
    2. Chancroid
    3. Haemophilus ducreyi
    4. Herpes


  3. Female genital mutilation (FGM) involves:


    1. Partial or total removal of internal female genitalia
    2. Partial or total removal of external female genitalia
    3. Partial or total removal of both internal and external female genitalia
    4. None


  4. The immune cells involved in protection against acquiring HIV infections are


    1. Langerhan's cells
    2. NK cells
    3. CD 4 cells
    4. a) and c)


  5. MC reduces the risk of men acquiring HSV-2 and HPV by:


    1. 30%
    2. 50%
    3. 70%
    4. None of the above


ANSWER KEY

  1. c)
  2. b)
  3. b)
  4. d)
  5. a)




 
   References Top

1.
Non-Therapeutic Male Circumcision Toolkit 9; December, 2020. Available from: https://www.bma.org.uk/media/1847/bma-non-therapeutic-male-circumcision-of-children-guidance-2019.pdf. [Last accessed on 2021 Mar 05].  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Wiswell TE, Miller GM, Gelston HM Jr., Jones SK, Clemmings AF. Effect of circumcision status on periurethral bacterial flora during the first year of life. J Pediatr 1988;113:442-6.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Moses S, Bailey RC, Ronald AR. Male circumcision: Assessment of health benefits and risks. Sex Transm Infect 1998;74:368-73.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Schoen EJ, Wiswell TE, Moses S. New policy on circumcision – cause for concern. Pediatrics. 2000;105:620-3.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Hutson JM. Circumcision: A surgeon's perspective. J Med Ethics 2004;30:238-40.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Morris BJ, Krieger JN, Klausner JD. CDC's Male circumcision recommendations represent a key public health measure. Glob Health Sci Pract 2017;5:15-27.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Weiss HA, Quigley MA, Hayes RJ. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection in sub-Saharan Africa: A systematic review and meta-analysis. AIDS 2000;14:2361-70.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Ed Susman, IAS: Circumcision Significantly Reduces Female-to-Male HIV Transmission: Medpage Today. July 2005. [Last accessed on 2021 Apr 12].  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Warner L, Ghanem KG, Newman DR, Macaluso M, Sullivan PS, Erbelding EJ. Male circumcision and risk of HIV infection among heterosexual African American men attending Baltimore sexually transmitted disease clinics. J Infect Dis 2009;199:59-65.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Chemtob D, Op de Coul E, van Sighem A, Mor Z, Cazein F, Semaille C. Impact of male circumcision among heterosexual HIV cases: Comparisons between three low HIV prevalence countries. Isr J Health Policy Res 2015;4:36.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Arora P, Nagelkerke NJD, Jha P. A systematic review and meta-analysis of risk factors for sexual transmission of HIV in India. PLoS One 2012;7:e44094.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Updating Recommendations on Safe Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention and Related Service Delivery for Adolescent Boys and Adult Men in Generalized HIV Epidemics. Available from: https://www.who.int/hiv/mediacentre/news/gdg-male-circumcision/en. [Last accessed on 2021 Mar 05].  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Reynolds SJ, Shepherd ME, Risbud AR, Gangakhedkar RR, Brookmeyer RS, Divekar AD, et al. Male circumcision and risk of HIV-1 and other sexually transmitted infections in India. Lancet 2004;363:1039-40.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Gray R, Aizire J, Serwadda D, Kiwanuka N, Kigozi G, Kiddugavu M, et al. Male circumcision and the risk of sexually transmitted infections and HIV in Rakai, Uganda. AIDS 2004;18:2428-30.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Weiss HA, Thomas SL, Munabi SK, Hayes RJ. Male circumcision and risk of syphilis, chancroid, and genital herpes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sex Transm Infect 2006;82:101-9.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Tobian AA, Kigozi G, Redd AD, Serwadda D, Kong X, Oliver A, et al. Male circumcision and herpes simplex virus type 2 infection in female partners: A randomized trial in Rakai, Uganda. J Infect Dis 2012;205:486-90.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Gray RH, Serwadda D, Tobian AA, Chen MZ, Makumbi F, Suntoke T, et al. Effects of genital ulcer disease and herpes simplex virus type 2 on the efficacy of male circumcision for HIV prevention: Analyses from the Rakai trials. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000187.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Van Howe RS. Sexually transmitted infections and Male circumcision: A systematic review and meta-analysis. ISRN Urol 2013;2013:109846:13.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Balachandran C, Sathish Pai B, Textbook of Sexually Transmitted Diseases and HIV/AIDS. 2nd ed., Ch. 19. Viva Books Pvt Ltd; 2009. p. 346.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Tobian AA, Serwadda D, Quinn TC, Kigozi G, Gravitt PE, Laeyendecker O, et al. Male circumcision for the prevention of HSV-2 and HPV infections and syphilis. N Engl J Med 2009;360:1298-309.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Gray RH, Serwadda D, Kong X, Makumbi F, Kigozi G, Gravitt PE, et al. Male circumcision decreases acquisition and increases clearance of high-risk human papillomavirus in HIV-negative men: A randomized trial in Rakai, Uganda. J Infect Dis 2010;201:1455-62.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Diseker RA 3rd, Peterman TA, Kamb ML, Kent C, Zenilman JM, Douglas JM Jr., et al. Circumcision and STD in the United States: Cross sectional and cohort analyses. Sex Transm Infect 2000;76:474-9.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Mehta SD, Moses S, Agot K, Parker C, Ndinya-Achola JO, Maclean I, et al. Adult male circumcision does not reduce the risk of incident Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Chlamydia trachomatis, or Trichomonas vaginalis infection: Results from a randomized, controlled trial in Kenya. J Infect Dis 2009;200:370-8.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Emmanuel A, Watkin N. Circumcision and Penile Cancer. In Complications in Male Circumcision 2019 Jan 1 (pp. 21-23). Elsevier.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Turner AN, Morrison CS, Padian NS, Kaufman JS, Behets FM, Salata RA, et al. Male circumcision and women's risk of incident chlamydial, gonococcal, and trichomonal infections. Sex Transm Dis 2008;35:689-95.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Davis MA, Gray RH, Grabowski MK, Serwadda D, Kigozi G, Gravitt PE, et al. Male circumcision decreases high-risk human papillomavirus viral load in female partners: A randomized trial in Rakai, Uganda. Int J Cancer 2013;133:1247-52.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
WHO 2020 Female Genital Mutilation; February, 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation. [Last accessed on 2021 Mar 05].  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Monjok E, Essien EJ, Holmes L Jr. Female genital mutilation: Potential for HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa and prospect for epidemiologic investigation and intervention. Afr J Reprod Health 2007;11:33-42.  Back to cited text no. 28
    




 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

 
  Search
 
  
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Article in PDF (422 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
   History
    Centers for Dise...
    Circumcision and...
    Circumcision and...
    Circumcision and...
    Circumcision and...
    Circumcsion and ...
    Circumcsion and ...
    Circumcision and...
    Circumcision and...
    Circumcision and...
    Impact of MC on ...
    Female Circumcis...
   Take Home Messages
    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed594    
    Printed22    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded23    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal