[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
October 16, 1915

The Fate of Bone Transplants

Author Affiliations

El Paso, Texas.

JAMA. 1915;LXV(16):1388. doi:10.1001/jama.1915.02580160072032

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:  —We have received a letter from Dr. C. A. McWilliams of New York, complaining that our Conclusion 2 on experimental bone work (The Journal, September 18) was unfair, in that it implied that because of lack of sufficient contact and immobilization, his wounds suppurated.We hasten to correct this impression, as if this interpretation were put on the conclusion it would be manifestly unfair to Dr. McWilliams.Exactly what we meant was that there was not sufficient contact and immobilization in his dog experiments, and not sufficient contact in his three clinical cases to secure primary union between the transplant and parent bone.So far as other criticisms of the article by Dr. McWilliams are concerned, they pertain to the scientific value of the contribution, and will be answered at another time if need be.We hope that the foregoing explanation will make the conclusion plain.[The

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