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.—On reading the title "Hematologic Integrity After Intraoperative Allotransfusion" (Arch Surg 108:831, 1974), I was very interested to see whether or not cross-species transfusion was being investigated again, but on reading the article, as well as the editorial comment about it, I see that it is not allotransfusion at all but autotransfusion. I cannot imagine any defense of choice of the prefix allo- as it means "other." With reference to grafting or transfusions the prefix allo- would suggest crossspecies transfer, the prefix homowould suggest transfer within the same species, and the prefix autowould indicate transfer in the same individual. I am certainly curious as to why Dr. Aaron and his colleagues elected to introduce a new term when "autotransfusion" is clearer semantically and has also been a part of the literature to date.
Drs. Lamm and Barnhouse are, of course, correct. How the term "allotransfusion" instead of
BARNHOUSE DH. Hematologic Integrity After Intraoperative Allotransfusion. Arch Surg. 1975;110(1):128–129. doi:10.1001/archsurg.1975.01360070128028
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: