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?

JAMES F. NEWSOME, M.D.; COLIN G. THOMAS, Jr., M.D.

AMA Arch Surg. 1959;78(4):593-596.

	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 problem of wound dehiscence with evisceration is probably not as frequent as in former years, but still constitutes a very serious threat to the recovery of any patient in whom it occurs. The decreased incidence of this complication may be attributed to the better understanding of the physiology of wound repair, in conjunction with the employment of muscle-splitting incisions, better techniques of wound closure, and general improvement in preoperative and postoperative care. An estimate of the over-all incidence of abdominal Wound disruption and of the associated mortality may be gleaned from past reviews of the subject,^{1,2,4,6,8,10-14} which cite an incidence of wound dehiscence of 1% to 2%, with an average mortality rate of 20% to 53%.

Management of the disrupted abdominal wound has consisted primarily of immediate resuture, which has definite superiority over the use of a tampon. The incidence of wound infection and peritonitis in such wounds . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Chapel Hill, N. C.

From the Department of Surgery, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, and the North Carolina Memorial Hospital, University of North Carolina.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication Nov. 12, 1958.

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