Although a New Zealand study provides evidence that circumcision may lower the risk of men contracting sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), researchers are not suggesting that people throw out their condoms.

Beginning in 1977, the study was conducted over a span of 25 years to monitor a cohort of 500 subjects from infancy through early adulthood. The study was trying to determine if circumcised males were more likely than uncircumcised males to get STDs, said Dr. David Fergusson, the lead author of the study published in the November 2006 issue of Pediatrics.

The New Zealand-born subjects were evaluated periodically, once at birth to measure their circumcision and then to collect their medical histories through the age of 15, Fergusson said. At ages 21 and 25, subjects reported their histories of STDs from the four years prior to the date of evaluation.

"What we found was that uncircumcised males had a risk of sexually transmitted diseases which were about three times higher than circumcised males," Fergusson said.

While the association between circumcision and major STDs, such as HIV, was solid, Fergusson said, there was less of a link between circumcision and less severe infections like gonorrhea and herpes.

According to the study, researchers gathered information of the subjects' social, family and related background factors and took measures of sexual activity during adolescence and young adulthood. These factors were examined to determine if there were reasons for a decreased risk of infection unrelated to circumcision.

Risks of STDs were "unrelated to all measures of childhood social background and birth weight," according to the study. The study also noted that risks of infection were found to be related to number of sexual partners and engaging in unprotected sex.

"It would be premature to use these results to promote the view that circumcision would reduce the risk of infection," Fergusson said. "But it would be premature to dismiss that possibility as well."

Although Fergusson said there seemed to be no errors in his study, a similar Australian study involving 10,000 subjects found no association between circumcision and the risk of STDs.

Speculating based on medical literature, Dr. Harold Bassett, university physician, said he thinks infectious particles from vaginal secretions get underneath the foreskin in uncircumcised men, creating a longer contact time for the infection to be contracted.

Bassett said there have been several evidence-based studies that suggest that there may be a lower risk of circumcised men getting syphilis, HIV, chancroid and possibly herpes, than uncircumcised men. But Bassett said there is still not enough medical evidence to make preventative circumcision a routine procedure.

"I think [routine circumcision] is something that deserves a lot more study," Bassett said.

In the U.S., the percentage of circumcised males has dropped because of insurance companies not paying for the procedure because it is an elective surgery, Bassett said.

"[The surgery] is up to the infant's parents, and there's not enough evidence suggesting that there are medical reasons for having it done," he added.

Fergusson estimated that in a group of 20 circumcised males, only one would avoid infections altogether. The controversy surrounding circumcision is based on the idea that routine circumcision would not necessarily work for everyone, and the costs of surgery may outweigh the benefits.

"The debate goes on about whether it's ethical and sensible and justifiable to perform unnecessary surgery to prevent STDs in one person," Fergusson said.

As with any kind of surgery, there is a risk of complications from circumcision, including infection, scarring and physical deformity, Bassett said.

"Even though there's some information out there that [suggests] circumcision lowers the risk of STDs, the bottom line is if someone is going to be sexually active, be safe," Bassett said.