[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
October 1992

Diagnostic Laparoscopy: Is It Being Overused?

Author Affiliations

Des Moines, Iowa

Arch Surg. 1992;127(10):1256. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1992.01420100122023

To the Editor.—Realizing the limitations in commenting on an article dealing with an invasive diagnostic procedure in patients who are known only to the authors who have recorded their history and have had the opportunity to examine them, I do feel it is appropriate to offer some comments on the article by Easter et al,1 published in the April 1992 issue of the Archives.

My first comment has to do with Table 1. The total under the column head "No. of Patients" is 120, but the numbers add up to 119. The total under the column head "No. (%) of Positive Examination Results" is 68, but the numbers add up to 66.

The authors indicate that "significant adhesions" were found in 24 patients, but adhesiolysis was performed in only 10 patients (via a laparoscope in nine patients and an open procedure in one patient). What then was the clinical

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