This Article  • References  • 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  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

EUGENE J. GIBNEY, FRCSI
Lioydminster, Saskatchewan, Canada

Arch Surg. 1993;128(2):247.

	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.—The article by Schulze et al¹ in the March 1992 issue of the ARCHIVES raises a number of important questions concerning the reporting of clinical studies of new techniques. As the authors point out in their introduction, whether the benefits of modulating the neurohumeral responses to major surgery (not to be confused with efforts to lessen the surgical insult) outweigh the possible disadvantages remains to be determined. It is accepted that potent pharmacologic agents can alter the responses. Whether this is to the patient's benefit or detriment is not clear from this study. The small size of this study makes meaningful analysis of the data difficult. It is noticeable, however, that of those 11 patients in group 2, two patients developed wound dehiscence. Such a high incidence of a serious complication demands more attention than the authors pay to it. It is suggested that poor surgical . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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