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

GEORGE E. MOORE, M.D.

AMA Arch Surg. 1953;66(5):698-699.

	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 NUMEROUS T-tube designs reported in the literature and available commercially are ample evidence that no single one is adequate for the manifold variations of common duct pathology encountered during surgery. Several annoying experiences with the intubation of common ducts which would admit a T-tube no larger than a No. 8 or 10F indicated a need for a redesigned T-tube for these particular cases. If one wishes to drain such a duct there are three immediate alternatives: (1) use of a standard No. 8F T-tube, (2) use of a small straight cathether of rubber or polyethylene, and (3) use of a fabricated catheter, such as a ureteral catheter. The advantages of using a standard small-sized T-tube are negated by the flexibility and ready collapsibility of the long thin-walled stem and the difficulty in securing it to a glass or metal adapter with an adequate lumen. An additional expedient, suggested by . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
MINNEAPOLIS

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