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 HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

GÉZA de TAKÁTS, M.D.; JOHN T. REYNOLDS, M.D.

Arch Surg. 1940;40(2):253-270.

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

In spite of significant additions to the conservative therapy of peripheral vascular disease, such as suction and pressure therapy, intermittent venous hyperemia, iontophoresis with acetylbetamethylcholine hydrochloride (mecholyl) and other measures (the value and limitations of which have been recently analyzed from this clinic¹), there still remains a group of cases in which amputation must be performed either as a life-saving measure or to rid the patient of a painful and functionless limb which undermines his morale and lowers his earning capacity. It has seemed to us that since the advent of the newer conservative measures, which are urged and demanded by patients even in obviously hopeless cases, patients come later than ever for amputation, thereby increasing the mortality and discrediting the procedure.

In this brief study we wish to present our experience with major and minor amputations done for peripheral vascular disease by ourselves or under our supervision in the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
CHICAGO

From the Department of Surgery, University of Illinois, College of Medicine, and from the "Circulatory Group," St. Luke's Hospital.

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