[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.161.130.145. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
March 1966

Current Attitudes on Diverticulitis With Particular Reference to Colonic Bleeding

Author Affiliations

LONDON
From the Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.; After May 1, 1966, Dr. Rigg's address will be Division of Plastic Surgery, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.

Arch Surg. 1966;92(3):321-332. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1966.01320210001001
Abstract

IN THE FIRST edition of his authoritative text on diseases of the colon (1923), Lockhart-Mummery1 stated that "... while a history of a slight amount of (rectal) bleeding is common in cancer, it is usually absent in diverticulitis." This was the standard teaching at that time, and a history of bleeding, certainly in the presence of an obstructive lesion of the distal colon, was believed to be more strongly in favor of carcinoma than of diverticulitis. Further, diverticulitis did not readily come to mind as a likely diagnosis when a patient presented with unheralded hemorrhage in the absence of any obstructive symptoms.

How very different are the views current today. Noer and his colleagues (1962),2 in an analysis of 245 patients who presented with rectal bleeding, decided that in 62 of these patients the cause was diverticulitis. Fallis and Marshall (1950)3 went so far as to say that

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