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

Learn More →

Invited Commentary

Invited Commentary This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables. Abstract The authors have clearly stated that the autotransplanted spleen can clear bacteria, as can the intact in situ spleen, but that it does not provide full protection against a bacterial challenge. The authors propose that splenic autotransplantation is a viable alternative to splenectomy or to intraperitoneal implantation of splenic fragments in the setting of splenic trauma. They ascribe the difference in protection yielded by the autotransplant (compared with the intact spleen) to its position outside the portal circulation. Might intraperitoneal implants provide better protection than the transplanted spleen? The questions also arise: Can the operation be performed? and In whom? The answers depend on two factors: the condition of the spleen and the condition of the patient. In current practice, more than 60% of injured spleens prove amenable to splenorrhaphy, if the injury is isolated to that organ and if the hilus is intact. Since an intact hilus would be http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archives of Surgery American Medical Association

Invited Commentary

Archives of Surgery , Volume 130 (9) – Sep 1, 1995

Invited Commentary

Abstract

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables. Abstract The authors have clearly stated that the autotransplanted spleen can clear bacteria, as can the intact in situ spleen, but that it does not provide full protection against a bacterial challenge. The authors propose that splenic autotransplantation is a viable alternative to splenectomy or to intraperitoneal implantation of splenic fragments in the...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/invited-commentary-1iKtKvgiLa
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN
0004-0010
eISSN
1538-3644
DOI
10.1001/archsurg.1995.01430090037014
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables. Abstract The authors have clearly stated that the autotransplanted spleen can clear bacteria, as can the intact in situ spleen, but that it does not provide full protection against a bacterial challenge. The authors propose that splenic autotransplantation is a viable alternative to splenectomy or to intraperitoneal implantation of splenic fragments in the setting of splenic trauma. They ascribe the difference in protection yielded by the autotransplant (compared with the intact spleen) to its position outside the portal circulation. Might intraperitoneal implants provide better protection than the transplanted spleen? The questions also arise: Can the operation be performed? and In whom? The answers depend on two factors: the condition of the spleen and the condition of the patient. In current practice, more than 60% of injured spleens prove amenable to splenorrhaphy, if the injury is isolated to that organ and if the hilus is intact. Since an intact hilus would be

Journal

Archives of SurgeryAmerican Medical Association

Published: Sep 1, 1995

There are no references for this article.