This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
Philadelphia, March 29, 1898.
To the Editor:
—I find the remarks made by me in the discussion of Dr. Roe's paper in the issue of the Journal (March 26, page 716), as reported, are so at variance with the idea that I wished to convey, that I hope you can find it possible to correct them. I distinctly said that esophagostomy is more desirable than esophagotomy, because the dangers of entering the posterior mediastinum are thus removed and we are enabled to remove the foreign body, if there be such, or divide the stricture through the external opening, thereby inflicting the minimum amount of force in the ulcerated region.Yours faithfully,
Hammond LJ. Esophagostomy vs. Esophagotomy. JAMA. 1898;XXX(15):873. doi:10.1001/jama.1898.02440670061018
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: