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  • Citing articles on Web of Science (7)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

FRANKLIN E. WALTON, M.D.

Arch Surg. 1948;57(2):217-226.

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

SEVERAL years ago Norris¹ stated, "the elimination of postoperative wound dehiscence is entirely within the jurisdiction of the operating surgeon," yet the occurrence of this surgical catastrophe remains uncomfortably constant. To say that this major complication of abdominal surgical treatment is shocking to the surgeon and the patient alike is a decided understatement.

The term "dehiscence," from the verb, "dehiscere," to gape, is graphic and descriptive. As used throughout this paper, it applies to that condition in which any portion of the contents of the peritoneal cavity is extruded from that cavity and presents itself in the operative wound. Within the past decade several excellent statistical studies² of wound disruption, with purposeful discussions concerning corrective measures, have been made and are available in the literature.

INCIDENCE AND MORTALITY

The incidence of this surgical complication and its mortality rate have been rather uniform for the past fifteen years, as . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
ST. LOUIS

From the Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine and The Medical Center, St. Louis.

Footnotes
Read at the fifth annual meeting of the Central Surgical Association, Chicago, Feb. 21, 1948.

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