This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (25)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

FUHEID S. DAOUD, MD; DONALD C. FISCHER, MD; CHARLES D. HAFNER, MD, MS

AMA Arch Surg. 1966;92(1):32-34.

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

OF THE MANY controversial problems that exist in surgery today, that of drainage versus nondrainage following splenectomy remains to be solved. Recently, a report by Cohn¹ tended to incriminate drainage of the splenic bed as a possible source of increased postoperative complications of the local-infection type. In the past, no controlled studies have been offered to lend support to either proponents or opponents^2,3 of postsplenectomy drainage. The paucity of statistical knowledge concerning this controversy has stimulated the present review of our experience.

Material and Methods

During the ten-year period, 1955 through 1964, splenectomy was performed on 106 patients. The indications and complications were analyzed. Particular interest was focused on whether the splenic bed was drained.

The age of the patients ranged from 17 months to 74 years. The average for the entire group was 35.5 years, and there was a slight preponderance of male over female.

Indication for . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
CINCINNATI

From the Department of Surgery, Good Samaritan Hospital, Cincinnati.

Footnotes
Submitted for publication Oct 11, 1965.

Reprint requests to 311 Howell Ave, Cincinnati, Ohio 45220 (Dr. Hafner).

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