For me the most striking information/fact was the 19%. Forget the spin they put on it by adding ONLY. 19% is almost a quarter of the patients who regretted the surgery. That is not a mark of a procedure that is called a "gold standard" or "almost miraculous", or "effective with a 100% success rate". I did not get caught between the disparity of the high number of people with CS and the number 19. I do not care about that, it is possible that people feel affected by their CS (when it is mild or whatever) but they still see it as a trade-off they do not regret. That is OK. But 19% regretting the surgery and this coming out in the publication is just something that blew me away. Once this is out in print, there is no going back to their earlier self-induced euphoria and delusion. Although for this kind of knowledge/info, they at least have to follow up their patients, which is something very rare in Australia. So that makes me curious how they get their numbers they quote the patient during consultation...

The other interesting fact is that the article is the same study. Here are the dates of the publication:
J Pediatr Surg. 2007 Jul;42(7):1238-42
Epub 2007 Nov 13
Pediatr Surg Int. 2008 Mar;24(3):343-7.
There is no question that it is one and the same article being submitted to other papers. So how and why did the numbers change? I find such 'mistakes' interesting.