Where to draw the line? Understanding preferences in mucosal collar length after circumcision: A crowdsourced survey from the U.S. general population

Authors

  • Michael Callegari University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center
  • Wade Muncey University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center
  • Tyler Kim Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine
  • Stephen Rhodes
  • Lynn Woo
  • Jessica Hannick

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.7691

Keywords:

circumcision, prepuce, mucosal collar, penis

Abstract

Introduction: Male circumcision is a polarizing and prevalent procedure. Little understanding exists regarding patient preferences for circumcision appearance. Our objective was to elicit how mucosal collar length may be perceived in terms of overall cosmesis and desirability among adults.

Methods: A questionnaire using REDCap was created and distributed through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Respondents provided demographic information and circumcision status before being challenged with artistic representations of circumcised penises with increasing lengths of mucosal collar. Participants were asked to select the most and least esthetically pleasing image, as well as rate the “importance of appearance” from 0–100. Responses were analyzed with ordinal regression models.

Results: Preference for shorter mucosal collars were seen in respondents with a postgraduate education (p=0.013) and no religious affiliation (p=0.034). In contrast, participants reporting a religious affiliation preferred longer mucosal collars (p=0.034). Circumcised males rated appearance as being more important (p=0.001) in contrast to uncircumcised males who did not (p=0.001). Circumcised fathers were more likely to circumcise their sons relative to uncircumcised fathers (p<0.05) and women preferred circumcision (p<0.05).

Conclusions: Our study revealed polarized esthetic preferences in the sample as a whole, with large proportions of respondents selecting the longest or shortest collar length. Preferences regarding mucosal collar length appear to be most influenced by education and religion. Overall, our study did not observe a predominant preference for mucosal collar length following circumcision. Surgeons should engage patients and/or caregivers/parents preoperatively in discussions regarding preferences and desired cosmetic outcomes.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Downloads

Published

2022-04-11

How to Cite

Callegari, M., Muncey, W., Kim, T., Rhodes, S., Woo, L., & Hannick, J. (2022). Where to draw the line? Understanding preferences in mucosal collar length after circumcision: A crowdsourced survey from the U.S. general population. Canadian Urological Association Journal, 16(9), E473–8. https://doi.org/10.5489/cuaj.7691

Issue

Vol. 16 No. 9 (2022): CUA September

Section

Original Research

License

You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:

  • Post the Article on any Web site
  • Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
  • Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.

The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.

You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.

The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:

  • That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
  • That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
  • That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
  • That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.