We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
This Month in |

This Month in Archives of Surgery FREE

Arch Surg. 2002;137(9):992. doi:10.1001/archsurg.137.9.992.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

This ARCHIVES issue attempts to resolve several important issues of surgical practice. We trust that the articles and discussions of these problems will help you determine the best method of dealing with these controversies. First, does the use of computed tomography (CT) and laparoscopy improve the outcome for elderly patients with appendicitis? A retrospective analysis of appendectomy using CT and the laparoscopic approach did not lower the morbidity or mortality rate among the elderly. Emphasis was placed on earlier consideration of the diagnosis in older patients with abdominal pain, followed by prompt surgical consultation and operation. In reviewing the article's discussion, it is apparent that CT can help in determining alternative diagnoses.

Second, how to deal with the pancreatic stump when the pancreatic duct is small and the residual organ is soft is a problem all pancreatic surgeons consider. Suzuki et al present their algorithm based on 50 consecutive pancreatoduodenectomies, with different procedures used prospectively according to pancreatic texture and duct size (aided by fibrin glue). Behrman's invited critique puts this information into perspective.

Third, when is the best time for wound excision and grafting in severely burned children? Xiao-Wu et al found that delays in excision were associated with longer hospitalization and delayed wound closure as well as increased rates of invasive wound infection and sepsis. Early excision (within 48 hours) is optimal. Our reviewers warn us of the potential harm of early operative intervention.


To answer the age-old question, "Can you improve the status of an asymptomatic patient?" Sheldon et al analyzed 74 consecutive patients who underwent parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism using the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) as a basis for comparison preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. They found that surgical treatment, regardless of the preoperative symptoms, was associated with durable, statistically significant improvements in health-related quality of life, whether the operative intervention was bilateral neck exploration, unilateral neck exploration, or a minimally invasive 1-gland exploration. Although one can bicker about the interpretation of asymptomatic, it is difficult to ignore these results.


Sackett et al have surveyed the members of the International Association of Endocrine Surgeons and have had enough feedback to make the following statements. First, the number of parathyroidectomies performed worldwide increased more than 4-fold in the 20 years from 1980 through 2000 and the average number per endocrine surgeon increased to 45 annually, with more than half of the surgeons using minimally invasive techniques. Second, the most common approach is the focused technique with a small incision, either central or lateral, followed by endoscopic gland retrieval. Third, techniques used to ensure completeness of resection include a quick intraoperative intact parathyroid hormone assay, a same-day intact parathyroid hormone assay, and the nuclear probe.


In a series of more than 200 consecutive patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease undergoing a fundoplication, preoperative and postoperative testing was conducted. Only a few patients in the postoperative symptomatic group had abnormal DeMeester scores. Thus, symptomatic assessment appears to be a poor predictor of true pathological reflux in these patients.




Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.