Linked Life Data

7218971

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/7218971

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
2
pubmed:dateCreated
1981-6-23
pubmed:abstractText
Normal or scarred appendixes may be removed by amputation or inversion. Inversion is appealing for its high degree of asepsis, but criticized for the possibility of organ retention with consecutive invagination. The risks and advantages of amputation appear to be exactly the opposite. For objective comparison, a prospective study was undertaken, using both procedures in 400 cases of solitary and 40 cases of complementary appendectomies at a random number key. Wound infection was observed in 0.5% following inversion, in 8% following amputation as a solitary procedure. Both methods were equally followed by wound infections which performed as complementary procedures. However, inversion was free of enterogenous infection in all cases. Technical precautions were taken to facilitate sloughing of inverted appendixes. No clinical symptoms indicating retention or correlated complications were observed.
pubmed:language
ger
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:issn
0023-8236
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
353
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
129-38
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
1980
pubmed:articleTitle
[Inversion versus amputation of the appendix: an objective comparison of 440 randomized cases (author's transl)].
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Clinical Trial, Comparative Study, English Abstract, Randomized Controlled Trial