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

JAY IRELAND, M.D.

Arch Surg. 1941;43(3):418-421.

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

During the years from 1920 to 1939, inclusive, 133 patients were admitted to the Children's Memorial Hospital with the diagnosis of intussusception. In every instance the diagnosis was proved either at operation or necropsy, with 15 exceptions, which will be discussed further. Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 are self explanatory and show some of the pertinent facts concerning the entire group.

Of significance is the fact that enemas given to 64 of the 133 patients failed to produce reduction in all except 11. This is in contrast to Hipsley's¹ results. He procured a reduction in 60 per cent of his patients by this method with only one perforation of the bowel in more than 300 patients. The chief criticism of the method used by Hipsley is that one cannot be certain that reduction of the intussusception has occurred following the enema. Then, too, this method would seem to . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
CHICAGO

From the surgical service of Dr. A. H. Montgomery at the Children's Memorial Hospital.

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