This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (13)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Review of the Literature and Report on Fifty-Two Cases

NORMAN H. ISAACSON, M.D.; BRIAN BLADES, M.D.

AMA Arch Surg. 1951;62(4):455-466.

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

APPARENT discrepancies between the clinical and anatomicopathological findings in appendicitis are only too familiar to both surgeons and pathologists. All too often a vermiform appendix is called normal by the surgical pathologist after a cursory examination of one or two sections stained with hematoxylin and eosin has failed to disclose inflammatory cells in the wall. In other cases the specimen is described as an "interval appendix" or a "chronic appendix." this description indicating a failure to discover the underlying disorder. In addition, there is great controversy among surgeons themselves on the subject of "chronic appendicitis." Many do not accept the diagnosis, believing that if an appendix is removed which shows no gross or microscopic evidence of inflammation the relief obtained, if any, is only mental.

There are no specific pathologic changes characteristic of the so-called chronic appendix. Symptoms referable to that organ can be produced by many extra-appendical causes,¹ . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
WASHINGTON, D. C.

From the surgical and laboratory services, George Washington University Hospital.

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