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

F. H. BENTLEY, M.D.

AMA Arch Surg. 1954;68(6):894-898.

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

DISCUSSION continues at the present time as to the best means of dealing with the young child who has an irreducible or gangrenous segment of ileum or cecum resulting from intussusception. Three methods are employed and are still debated: (1) primary resection and anastomosis; (2) two-stage resection and anastomosis (Mikulicz), and (3) lateral anastomosis leaving the intussusception in situ.

Primary resection and anastomosis is obviously the ideal method of treatment if it can be performed safely, but before accepting it as the routine treatment it is advisable to consider the problem in two ways:

1. The local hazard: the technical difficulties and risks involved in anastomosing the bowel immediately after excision of the infarcted or gangrenous segment.

2. The general hazard: the state of illness of the child.

The first danger is not insuperable. The literature contains several accounts of single cases in which primary resection and anastomosis has succeeded . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
PORTLAND, ORE.

Formerly Professor of Surgery, University of Durham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England.

Footnotes
Read at the Sixty-First Annual Meeting of the Western Surgical Association, Chicago, Dec. 5, 1953.

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