This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor:—
In The Journal for Jan. 1, 1955, page 77, a letter appeared criticizing my article "Pathognomonic Abdominal Sign for Meckel's Diverticulitis," in The Journal, March 27, 1954, page 1083. I appreciate the writer's interest but must take exception to some of his remarks. These are that (1) rectal hemorrhage is not a cardinal sign of Meckel's diverticulitis but of a peptic ulcer in a Meckel's diverticulum, (2) the "alleged pathognomonic sign" is possible in other abdominal diseases and not only when a Meckel's diverticulum is connected with the umbilicus, and (3) this sign cannot be expected to contribute to a lowered mortality rate from Meckel's diverticulitis—as "waiting for it to appear would prove disastrous." To answer each of these criticisms: 1. It would seem apparent that whenever a Meckel's diverticulum is in any way involved in disease that inflammation (mechanical, bacterial, mycotic, viral, etc.) must be part
DeNicola RR. MECKEL'S DIVERTICULITIS. JAMA. 1955;157(13):1152-1153. doi:10.1001/jama.1955.02950300080020