You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 133 No. 12, December 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Correspondence and Brief Communications
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal

Postoperative Complications of Temporary Abdominal Surgery

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

We appreciate the comments by Losanoff et al1 regarding our article on the utility of absorbable mesh for temporary abdominal coverage in the severely injured2; however, they misquoted Table 3 by substituting raw numbers for percentages and adding the 2 columns. Our bowel fistula rate was actually 11 (15%) of 73 patients, and not 34 (47%) of 73 patients as they implied. We agree, however, that mesh placed directly on the bowel increases the risk of fistula. Several techniques have evolved that have decreased our current bowel fistula rate to 1 (4%) in the last 24 patients. We first attempt to insert the omentum between the mesh and the viscera and place petroleum jelly-impregnated gauze over the mesh. Moist gauze, suction drains, a towel, and antimicrobial incise drape (Ioban, 3M, St Paul, Minn) are placed over the wound to keep it sealed, followed up with postoperative bladder pressures to . . . [Full Text of this Article]







HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1998 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.