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

C. FREDERICK KITTLE, M.D.; THOMAS G. ORR, Jr., M.D.; THOMAS G. ORR, M.D.

AMA Arch Surg. 1951;62(6):812-822.

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

THE OPERATION of choice for resection of the bowel is one that can be done with the greatest ease and which will produce as good or better results than any other technique.

For more than 100 years surgeons have been interested in bowel anastomosis, and during this time many methods have been tried, with more or less success. Parker and Kerr¹ stated that prior to 1908 no less than 200 methods of intestinal suture had been described. The first intestinal anastomoses were made by the open method. The morbidity and mortality were so great with this method that surgeons were stimulated to perfect other techniques to avoid the much feared peritonitis resulting from peritoneal contamination at the time of operation and later from leakage at the suture line. During the last 50 years the exteriorizing, obstructive resection, aseptic (closed) and open operations have had their adherents. Some of the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
KANSAS CITY, KAN.

Fellow, American Cancer Society (Dr. Kittle).

Footnotes
Read at the Fifty-Eighth Annual Meeting of the Western Surgical Association, Minneapolis, Dec. 1, 1950.

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