Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You and Your Team.

Learn More →

Esophagostomy vs. Esophagotomy.

Esophagostomy vs. Esophagotomy. Philadelphia, March 29, 1898. To the Editor: —I find the remarks made by me in the discussion of Dr. Roe's paper in the issue of the Journal (March 26, page 716), as reported, are so at variance with the idea that I wished to convey, that I hope you can find it possible to correct them. I distinctly said that esophagostomy is more desirable than esophagotomy, because the dangers of entering the posterior mediastinum are thus removed and we are enabled to remove the foreign body, if there be such, or divide the stricture through the external opening, thereby inflicting the minimum amount of force in the ulcerated region. Yours faithfully, http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA American Medical Association

Esophagostomy vs. Esophagotomy.

JAMA , Volume XXX (15) – Apr 9, 1898

Esophagostomy vs. Esophagotomy.

Abstract


Philadelphia, March 29, 1898.

To the Editor:
—I find the remarks made by me in the discussion of Dr. Roe's paper in the issue of the Journal (March 26, page 716), as reported, are so at variance with the idea that I wished to convey, that I hope you can find it possible to correct them. I distinctly said that esophagostomy is more desirable than esophagotomy, because the dangers of entering the posterior mediastinum are thus removed and we are...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/esophagostomy-vs-esophagotomy-qpSIEoWwYh
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1898 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
ISSN
0098-7484
eISSN
1538-3598
DOI
10.1001/jama.1898.02440670061018
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Philadelphia, March 29, 1898. To the Editor: —I find the remarks made by me in the discussion of Dr. Roe's paper in the issue of the Journal (March 26, page 716), as reported, are so at variance with the idea that I wished to convey, that I hope you can find it possible to correct them. I distinctly said that esophagostomy is more desirable than esophagotomy, because the dangers of entering the posterior mediastinum are thus removed and we are enabled to remove the foreign body, if there be such, or divide the stricture through the external opening, thereby inflicting the minimum amount of force in the ulcerated region. Yours faithfully,

Journal

JAMAAmerican Medical Association

Published: Apr 9, 1898

There are no references for this article.