This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on Web of Science (6)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

To Amputate or Reconstruct: That is the Question

Robert A. Chase, MD

AMA Arch Surg. 1970;100(4):382-392.

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

Wherefore you shall cut off as little of that which is sound as you possibly can; yet so that you rather cut away that which is quicke; than leave behind anything that is perished, according to the advice of Celsus.¹

It is precisely this philosophy expressed by Paré in the 16th century and its extension by recent advances in surgery that forms the basis for this paper. Paré continued, "Yet oft-times the commodity of the action of the rest of the part changes this counsell."¹ This wise advice forms a basis for the still valid rule that salvage of a part which is useless either in its original role or as a contributor to restoration of another part is unsound judgment. Specific sites of election for amputation in both the upper and lower limbs have been established as valid through four centuries of surgery. Decisions on appropriate treatment . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Stanford, Calif

From the Department of Surgery, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, Calif.

Footnotes
Accepted for publication Dec 10, 1969.

Read before the 77th annual meeting of the Western Surgical Association, Dallas, Nov 20, 1969.

Reprint requests to Department of Surgery, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, Calif 94305 (Dr. Chase).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?