This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (3)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

WILLIAM J. SCHIRMER, MD; RICARDO L. Rossi, MD
Burlington, Mass

Arch Surg. 1991;126(9):1161.

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

To the Editor.—We read with interest the commentary by Easter and Moossa¹ in the April 1991 issue of the ARCHIVES concerning laser and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. We agree with their cautionary note regarding the controlled rate at which new treatments and technologies should be learned before being broadly applied; in this instance, lasers and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. However, we must take issue with their conclusion that bile duct injury during laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be blamed on lasers. The authors cite their own experience of having reconstructed the biliary tract in six patients for ductal injuries sustained during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. In five of the patients, lasers had been used. The authors commented on the remarkable absence of tissue between the ends of the remaining proximal and distal ducts, suggesting it had been "vaporized."

In contrast to the experience of Easter and Moossa, the majority of patients referred to our institution with . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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