[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.161.175.236. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
May 4, 1901

Implantation of the Ureters.—A Reply.

JAMA. 1901;XXXVI(18):1263-1264. doi:10.1001/jama.1901.02470180045014

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

Chicago, April 29, 1901.

To the Editor:  —It gives me great pleasure to be afforded an opportunity of replying to Dr. Fowler's criticism (see last week's Journal) of certain conclusions appearing in my article on "Ureteral Anastomosis" recently published in The Journal (Feb. 16-March 23).The particular conclusion objected to is the third among the General Conclusions, and reads as follows: "All efforts to prevent ascending renal infection in animals or man, where the ureter has been implanted (into the intestine) without its vesical orifice have proved futile."In order to show this conclusion false, Dr. Fowler points to his case of uretero-rectal implantation, where the patient has survived bilateral uretero-rectal implantation by the Fowler method 4½ years and is to-day apparently in perfect health.What grounds have I for assuming that this patient's kidneys, as a result of the operative procedure, have been infected, "but that the infection has

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×