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?

A CRITICAL AND STATISTICAL STUDY

HORACE E. CAMPBELL, M.D.

Arch Surg. 1942;44(2):353-369.

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

Whether the undescended testicle is more liable to become the seat of malignant change than the scrotal testicle and whether, of undescended testicles, the inguinal is more likely to be affected than the abdominal are two questions which have not been satisfactorily answered. In 1927 Wangensteen wrote, "No greater diversity of opinion probably exists concerning anything in medicine than the question of malignancy in the undescended testis." In 1936 Hinman said, "Whether tumor is relatively more frequent with inguinal than with abdominal retention is uncertain."

From the data recorded in the literature it can now be stated unequivocally that the undescended testicle is more liable to malignant change than the normally placed testicle and that the abdominal testicle is more liable to malignant change than the inguinal.

There are at least six main reasons why these truths have so long remained obscure: 1. The medical profession has neglected the science . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
DENVER

Research Fellow in Surgery of the Harvard Medical School and George Gorham Peters Traveling Fellow in Surgery of the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital.; From the Laboratory for Surgical Research of the Harvard Medical School and the Surgical Service of the Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, Boston.

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