In Christianity, we do synoptic reading. We compare the Gospel to itself to see differences and discrepancies. This is NOT to say that something is in only one of the gospels, it didn't happen. Nor is it to say that if Gospels contradict each other that it isn't real.
Rather, we must compare an draw our own conclusions. That it is mentioned only one Gospel, despite it being pretty core to being Jewish (which SHOULD make it part of Matthew), means one of two things:
1. Nothing much happened, completely normal circumcision, nithing to see here folks.
2. There is very much something to see here, but it is not being said.
I trust that Mary and Joseph took Jesus to be circumcised. I trust that whatever happened there, the Bible won't tell us, and immediately skips to presentation at the temple. That is suspicious. I trust that Mary and Joseph thought their baby was normal and had "him" presented to the temple. And trust when both Simeon and Anna say that this is a miraculous child. All of this I trust about Luke's account. However, having seen my share of futanari porn, and knowing about a number of possible intersex (and even non-intersex such as enlarged clitoris) conditions, I'm gonna raise an eyebrow at the omission of the actual act of circumcision never being mentioned. As I mentioned, Acts has Timothy "taken" to circumcision and "was circumcised", Jesus is only "taken" to circumcision.
This entire account is like it's behind a medical screen, and you try to look in, and the doctor shoos you away. "Patient confidentiality," he says. For all we know, Jesus's lower organs might have looked like Cthulhu, and Luke tells us nothing at all. I know personally from being in the trans group that if you're transitioning, you can screen out visitors and hide the fact that you were born biologically male. The records will say female, the doctors will admit you to the female section, and you will be covered by the same sort of screen, with strict instructions that while recovering from cold/flu/broken leg/etc no visitors are allowed.
I'm not saying Luke is a liar. I'm saying you are being entirely too trusting of a single word ( "He") and not focusing enough on the fact that the Bible says that God is not confined to gender, so naturally "his" "son" might not be a son at all, but a daughter. God is "male" not because XY chromosomes but because the Chosen People (and later the Church) is "his" bride.
Before I graduated college, I had the pleasure of reading a book called Gender Shock, wherein many screwed up gender related incidents occurred, everything from intersex conditions to medical malpractice. In one, a child is declared a girl, and the mother dutifully dresses her as such. One problem. "She" notices "her" budding penis growing as a young "girl" and pulls up her dress to show it to her mother. Since her son is legally female, she's constrained to play along, and tells the child to pull down her dress and stop looking at it.
In another case, there was a kid named Bruce Reimer, whose penis was lost in a botched circumcision. The doctor instructed the patents to raise the child as a girl named Brenda (in this case, the child was not happy about it, and eventually killed himself).
These things happen. That the Bible chooses not to elaborate, but instead tells of this custom, doesn't mean something weird DIDN'T happen.
Jesus wasn't born in Egypt but he came out of Egypt. Jesus wasn't born in Nazareth but he fulfilled the prophecy of being a Nazarene. Jesus wasn't born of Joseph's line, but was an heir of King David. So far, none of these are as expected.
So, omitting the actual circumcision to instead talk about the tradition of circumcision. Should I suspect that it went without any irregularities? Based on everything before? No.