[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
April 1926


Author Affiliations

From the department of surgery, State University of Iowa College of Medicine.

Arch Surg. 1926;12(4):854-866. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1926.01130040067003

The question of the recognition of endothelioma as a pathologic entity has always been disputable. The lax requirements for diagnosing endothelioma laid down by Golgi1 in 1869 and by Kolaczek2 in 1895 led to widely spread and frequent diagnoses of endothelioma in cases in which no such condition was present. It was Volkmann3 who protested against these en masse diagnoses of endothelioma. Volkmann pointed out the importance for diagnosis of studying the origin and the development of the tumor rather than the cytology present. The influence of Kolaczek's paper, however, was not offset by Volkmann's arguments. The psychologic factors are evident. Kolaczek's requirement for a diagnosis of endothelioma—the presence of blood between the acinous groups of tumor cells—made this diagnosis popular in complex or uncommon tumors. This diagnostic tendency was applied also to uncommon bone tumors. Howard and Crile's article4 of twenty years ago is an

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