 |
 |

CHOLECYSTOTOMY VERSUS CHOLECYSTECTOMY
LOUIS F. FALLON
Arch Surg. 1929;18(4):1259-1262.
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
The general practitioner who also performs operations is likely to develop a different attitude toward his cases, perhaps because his errors of judgment are always with him. It is customary for the specialistsurgeon to return the patient to the care of his regular physician when the operative convalescence is complete. If the operation is not completely successful or if there is recurrence of the trouble, it is thus the general physician who frequently shoulders the worry and discouragement. When a single person shoulders both jobs, that of the surgeon and that of the practitioner, it is certain that the patient will know whom to blame.
Cholelithiasis is a condition in which operation not infrequently proves disappointing. Fortunately, this experience seems to be decreasing, and this decrease probably is in relation to the growing tendency to practice removal of the gallbladder. It is because of the disappointments in my own practice
. . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]
Author Affiliations
From Clinical Work, St. Clau's Mercy Hospital, St. Johns, Newfoundland.
Footnotes
Read before the St. Johns Clinical Society, St. Johns, Newfoundland, December, 1927.
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
|