Ah, a meta-analysis! Excellent, studies of studies are almost always the best way for researchers to summarize findings, thanks a lot.

The conclusions very much match what I was trying to say: done in a sterile environment by doctors in hospitals with anesthetic, it's a very safe procedure. Done by rabbis/imams in the synagogue/mosque, this is insanely dangerous. If I had my way, I'd ban religious figures from performing circumcisions. If you want to get it done, go to a hospital.

As an elective surgery, the benefits are so close to zero as to be non-existent. From the meta-analysis:

while male circumcision may be useful in protecting against the incidence of male urinary tract infections, 12 bacterial colonization is still present after circumcision, so genital hygiene is regarded as more effective in preventing UTIs rather than circumcision surgeries. 13 In certain instances where hygiene is poor, circumcision may be implemented to prevent urinary tract infections.

I certainly wouldn't advocate for anyone that I know getting this procedure as it seems like a small risk for zero benefit (again, when done by doctors), but neither is it mutilation.