Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

A video study of pain relief during newborn male circumcision

Journal of Perinatology volume 26, pages 106–110 (2006)Cite this article

Abstract

Objective:

The purpose of this investigation was to compare the effectiveness of dorsal penile nerve block and topical lidocaine–prilocaine anesthesia techniques for pain relief during circumcision.

Methods:

In total, 18 healthy term newborn males were divided based on anesthesia. The topical lidocaine–prilocaine group had six males undergoing circumcision and three males undergoing a sham procedure. The dorsal penile nerve block group had six males undergoing circumcision and three males undergoing a sham procedure. The procedures were videotaped and viewed by 90 noninvestigator reviewers who scored the infants' pain using the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale and a numeric pain scale. Statistical analysis utilized a P-value of <0.05 as significant.

Results:

The median Neonatal Infant Pain Scale and numeric pain scores were significantly lower in the dorsal penile nerve block group than in the topical lidocaine–prilocaine group or the sham group (Neonatal Infant Pain Scale: 1.0 (range 0–6) versus 6.0 (range 2–6) versus 4.0 (range 0–6), P<0.001, respectively; numeric pain scale: 2.0 (range 0–10) versus 8.0 (range 1–10) versus 4.0 (range 0–10), P<0.001, respectively). In the sham group, procedures with the dorsal penile nerve block had significantly lower pain scores than those with topical lidocaine–prilocaine (Neonatal Infant Pain Scale: 1.0 (range 0–6) versus 5.0 (range 2– 6), P<0.001; numeric pain scale: 1.0 (0–8) versus 6.0 (range 0–10), P<0.001). When reviewers were divided by medical background, gender or parental status, no differences in pain scores were observed.

Conclusion:

The dorsal penile nerve block anesthesia technique for newborn male circumcision was significantly more effective for pain relief than topical lidocaine–prilocaine.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Lerman SE, Liao JC . Neonatal circumcision. Pediatr Clin N Am 2001; 48: 1539–1557.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Moses S, Bailey RI, Ronald AR . Male circumcision: assessment of health benefits and risks. Sex Trans Infect 1998; 74: 368–373.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. American Academy of Pediatrics. Task Force on Circumcision. Circumcision Policy Statement. Pediatrics 1999; 103: 686–693.

  4. Kaplan GW . Circumcision: an overview. Curr Probl Pediatr 1977; 7: 3–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Litman RS . Anesthesia and analgesia for the newborn circumcision. Obstet Gynecol Survey 2001; 56: 114–117.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Anand KJ, International Evidence-Based Group for Neonatal Pain. Consensus statement for the prevention and management of pain in the newborn. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001; 155: 173–180.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Butler-O'Hara M, LeMoine C, Gullet R . Analgesia for circumcision: a randomized controlled trial of EMLA cream versus dorsal penile nerve block. Pediatrics 1998; 101: 5-DOI: 10.1542/peds.101.4e5.

  8. Lander J, Brady-Fryer B, Metcalfe JB, Nazarali S, Muttitt S . Comparison of ring block, dorsal penile nerve block, and topical anesthesia for neonatal circumcision. JAMA 1997; 278: 2157–2162.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Holliday MA, Pinckert TL, Kiernan SC, Kunos I, Angelus P, Keszler M . Dorsal penile nerve block versus topical placebo for circumcision in low-birth-weight neonates. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1999; 153: 476–480.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Brady-Fryer B, Wiebe N, Lander J . Pain relief for neonatal circumcision. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004 Issue 3. Art. No.:CD004217.pub2.DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD004217.pub2.

  11. Benini F, Johnston CC, Faucher D, Aranda JV . Topical anesthesia during circumcision in newborn infants. JAMA 1993; 270: 850–854.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Taddio A, Stevens B, Craig K, Rastogi P, Ben-David S, Shennan A et al. Efficacy and safety of lidocaine-prilocaine cream for pain during circumcision. N Engl J Med 1997; 336: 1197–1201.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Calobrisi SD, Drolet BA, Esterly NB . Petechial eruption after the application of EMLA cream. Pediatrics 1998; 101: 471–473.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Taddio A, Pollock N, Gilbert-MacLeod C, Ohlsson K, Koren G . Combined analgesia and local anesthesia to minimize pain during circumcision. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2000; 154: 620–623.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Hudson-Barr D, Capper-Michel B, Lambert S, Palermo TM, Morbeto K, Lombardo S . Validation of the Pain Assessment in Neonates (PAIN) scale with the Neonatal Infant Pain Scale (NIPS). Neonatal Network 2002; 21: 15–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Lawrence J, Alcock D, McGrath P, Kay J, MacMurray SB, Dulberg C . The development of a tool to assess neonatal pain. Neonatal Network 1993; 12: 59–66.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shah VS, Taddio A, Bennett S, Speidel BD . Neonatal pain response to heel stick versus venepuncture for routine blood sampling. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 1997; 77: F143–F144.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Khan KS, Chien PF . Evaluation of a clinical test. I: assessment of reliability. BJOG 2001; 108: 562–567.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Serour F, Mandelberg A, Zabeeda D, Mori J, Ezra S . Efficiency of ELMA cream prior to dorsal penile nerve block for circumcision in children. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1998; 42: 260–263.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Robinson ME, Wise EA . Gender bias in the observation of experimental pain. Pain 2003; 104: 259–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Howe RS . Pain relief for neonatal circumcision: serious design flaws? Pediatrics 1999; 103: 196–197.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Miller FG . Sham surgery: an ethical analysis. Am J Bioeth 2003; 3: 41–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gerbert B, Berg-Smith S, Mancuso M, Caspers N, Danley D, Herzig K et al. Video study of physician selection: preferences in the face of diversity. J Fam Pract 2003; 52: 552–559.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to the parents for allowing their infants to participate in our study, to the video reviewers and to Lester Lowe Ward III for his assistance with data.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA

    D J Garry, E Swoboda, A Elimian & R Figueroa

Authors
  1. D J Garry
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. E Swoboda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A Elimian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. R Figueroa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D J Garry.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Garry, D., Swoboda, E., Elimian, A. et al. A video study of pain relief during newborn male circumcision. J Perinatol 26, 106–110 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211413

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jp.7211413

Keywords

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links