The American Academy of Pediatrics recently released its new Technical Report and Policy Statement on male circumcision, concluding that current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks. The technical report is based on the scrutiny of a large number of complex scientific articles. Therefore, while striving for objectivity, the conclusions drawn by the 8 task force members reflect what these individual physicians perceived as trustworthy evidence. Seen from the outside, cultural bias reflecting the normality of nontherapeutic male circumcision in the United States seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by physicians in other parts of the Western world, including Europe, Canada, and Australia. In this commentary, a different view is presented by non–US-based physicians and representatives of general medical associations and societies for pediatrics, pediatric surgery, and pediatric urology in Northern Europe. To these authors, only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves.

No abstract

Over the last two decades, the surgical treatment of NPSCs has changed from a formerly customary total splenectomy to spleen-conserving procedures, such as total cystectomy with or without partial splenectomy or partial cystectomy. These therapeutic modalities can be performed laparoscopically, if technically possible. Fenestration or deroofing of the cyst resulted in a high recurrence rate (7/9).

Purpose: This prospective, single-center cohort study analyzes the potential of inflammatory protein mediator leucine-rich alpha-2 glycoprotein 1 (LRG1) for the early and accurate diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA), and differentiation of acute complicated (AcA) from uncomplicated appendicitis (AuA). Methods: Participants were divided into the AcA, AuA, and control groups, and their serum (s-LRG1) and urine LRG1 (u-LRG1) levels were assayed preoperatively on the second and fifth postoperative days. Results: 153 patients participated, 97 had AA. Preoperative u-LRG1 with a cut-off value of 0.18 μg/mL generated an area under the receiver operated characteristic (AUC) curve of 0.70 (95% CI 0.62–0.79) for AA versus control (p < 0.001), while the results for AcA versus AuA were not significant (AUC 0.60, 95% CI 0.49–0.71, p = 0.089). The s-LRG1 levels of AA versus the control with a cut-off value of 51.69 μg/mL generated an AUC of 0.94 (95% CI 0.91–0.99, p < 0.001). The cut-off value of s-LRG1 was 84.06 μg/mL for diagnosis of AcA from AuA, and therefore, significant (AUC 0.69, 95% CI 0.59–0.80, p = 0.001). Conclusions: LRG1 exhibited excellent diagnostic performance as an inexpensive, non-invasive, rapid, and accurate biomarker able to reflect the pathogenesis of AA. LRG1 has the potential to replace advanced imaging to diagnose clinically ambiguous AA cases.