Prospective, Randomized Evaluation of Early Removal of Nasogastric Tubes in Postceliotomy Trauma Patients

The objective of this study is to compare early (24-hour) removal of nasogastric tubes (NGTs) in trauma patients who have undergone emergency celiotomy to removal based on clinical signs of return of bowel function. All trauma patients who underwent an emergency celiotomy between November 1994 and A...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The American surgeon 1999-01, Vol.65 (1), p.52-54
Hauptverfasser: Knoepp, Louis F., Thomae, Keith R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 54
container_issue 1
container_start_page 52
container_title The American surgeon
container_volume 65
creator Knoepp, Louis F.
Thomae, Keith R.
description The objective of this study is to compare early (24-hour) removal of nasogastric tubes (NGTs) in trauma patients who have undergone emergency celiotomy to removal based on clinical signs of return of bowel function. All trauma patients who underwent an emergency celiotomy between November 1994 and August 1997 were randomized to 24-hour NGT removal, or removal when flatus and decreased NG output indicated. Exclusion criteria included patients with duodenal or esophageal injuries, those with airway intubations that were >24 hours, or those who had undergone same-hospitalization repeat celiotomy. Gastric or severity of intestinal injury were not exclusion criteria. Failure of NGT removal was defined as pain, abdominal distention, and vomiting. Mechanisms of injury, Injury Severity Score, operative findings, NGT removal times, morbidity, laboratory data, and reasons for failure were evaluated. A total of 177 patients qualified for the study. Two patients were inappropriately randomized and subsequently excluded. Of the remaining 175 patients, 151 sustained penetrating injuries and 24 sustained blunt injuries. Of the 151 patients in the penetrating injury group, 68 were randomized to the 24-hour pull (study) group and 83 were randomized to the clinical pull (control) group. There were three failures in the study group [3 of 68 patients (4.4%)] and three failures in the control group [3 of 83 patients (3.6%)]. Of the 24 blunt injury patients, 10 were randomized to the study group and 14 were randomized to the control group. There was one failure in the study group [1 of 10 patients (10.0%)] and one failure in the control group [1 of 14 patients (7.1%)]. Overall failure rate for the study group was 5.1 per cent [(3+l)/(68+10) = 5.1%] versus 4.1 per cent for the control group. Overall failure for all patients in the study was 4.6 per cent. Injury severity score, morbidity, and lab values were not significantly different. It is safe to remove NGTs at 24 hours in most trauma patients regardless of the severity of injury (failure rate, 5.1%). The surgical dogma of the need to have an NGT in longer for blunt trauma was not revealed in this study, however, a larger study would be needed to determine this with significance.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/000313489906500112
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69559626</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_000313489906500112</sage_id><sourcerecordid>38003718</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c394t-1fd218c357c954d8272b1d51a115a5b903bec62a6304cedb98de1013b72894923</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kW9L5DAQxoN46PrnCwhCEPHV9TaTNG3zUpZVD-RuWdbXZZqmEmmbNWmF9dObZRcFD-7VMDO_eeZhhpALYL8A8nzKGBMg0kIplknGAPgBmYCUMlEFF4dksgWSLXFMTkJ4iWmaSTgiR0pFTPAJsQvvwtrowb6Zn3SJfe06-25qOn_DdsTBup66hs7Rtxu6NJ2L5W3hDwb3jGHwVtPVWJlAbU8XLgzatNYNrtvQlcexQ7qIIqYfwhn50WAbzPk-npKnu_lq9pA8_r3_Pbt9TLRQ6ZBAU3MotJC5VjKtC57zCmoJCCBRVoqJyuiMYyZYqk1dqaI2wEBUOS9Uqrg4JTc73bV3r6MJQ9nZEF212Bs3hjJTUqqMZxG8-ga-uNH30VvJgedxe55HiO8gHe8UvGnKtbcd-k0JrNw-ofz3CXHocq88Vp2pP0f2V4_9630fg8a28dhrG76UsxQglRGb7rCAz-bL3H8WfwDnbJsd</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>212795477</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Prospective, Randomized Evaluation of Early Removal of Nasogastric Tubes in Postceliotomy Trauma Patients</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SAGE Complete A-Z List</source><creator>Knoepp, Louis F. ; Thomae, Keith R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Knoepp, Louis F. ; Thomae, Keith R.</creatorcontrib><description>The objective of this study is to compare early (24-hour) removal of nasogastric tubes (NGTs) in trauma patients who have undergone emergency celiotomy to removal based on clinical signs of return of bowel function. All trauma patients who underwent an emergency celiotomy between November 1994 and August 1997 were randomized to 24-hour NGT removal, or removal when flatus and decreased NG output indicated. Exclusion criteria included patients with duodenal or esophageal injuries, those with airway intubations that were &gt;24 hours, or those who had undergone same-hospitalization repeat celiotomy. Gastric or severity of intestinal injury were not exclusion criteria. Failure of NGT removal was defined as pain, abdominal distention, and vomiting. Mechanisms of injury, Injury Severity Score, operative findings, NGT removal times, morbidity, laboratory data, and reasons for failure were evaluated. A total of 177 patients qualified for the study. Two patients were inappropriately randomized and subsequently excluded. Of the remaining 175 patients, 151 sustained penetrating injuries and 24 sustained blunt injuries. Of the 151 patients in the penetrating injury group, 68 were randomized to the 24-hour pull (study) group and 83 were randomized to the clinical pull (control) group. There were three failures in the study group [3 of 68 patients (4.4%)] and three failures in the control group [3 of 83 patients (3.6%)]. Of the 24 blunt injury patients, 10 were randomized to the study group and 14 were randomized to the control group. There was one failure in the study group [1 of 10 patients (10.0%)] and one failure in the control group [1 of 14 patients (7.1%)]. Overall failure rate for the study group was 5.1 per cent [(3+l)/(68+10) = 5.1%] versus 4.1 per cent for the control group. Overall failure for all patients in the study was 4.6 per cent. Injury severity score, morbidity, and lab values were not significantly different. It is safe to remove NGTs at 24 hours in most trauma patients regardless of the severity of injury (failure rate, 5.1%). The surgical dogma of the need to have an NGT in longer for blunt trauma was not revealed in this study, however, a larger study would be needed to determine this with significance.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-1348</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1555-9823</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/000313489906500112</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9915532</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AMSUAW</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Abdominal Injuries - surgery ; Biological and medical sciences ; Digestive system ; Hemoglobins - analysis ; Humans ; Injury Severity Score ; Intubation, Gastrointestinal ; Length of Stay ; Leukocyte Count ; Medical research ; Medical sciences ; Postoperative Complications ; Prospective Studies ; Statistics, Nonparametric ; Stomach, duodenum, intestine, rectum, anus ; Surgery ; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases ; Surgery of the digestive system ; Time Factors</subject><ispartof>The American surgeon, 1999-01, Vol.65 (1), p.52-54</ispartof><rights>1999 Southeastern Surgical Congress</rights><rights>1999 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright The Southeastern Surgical Congress Jan 1999</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c394t-1fd218c357c954d8272b1d51a115a5b903bec62a6304cedb98de1013b72894923</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c394t-1fd218c357c954d8272b1d51a115a5b903bec62a6304cedb98de1013b72894923</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/000313489906500112$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/000313489906500112$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>309,310,314,780,784,789,790,4040,4041,21810,23921,23922,25131,27915,27916,43612,43613</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=1641145$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9915532$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Knoepp, Louis F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomae, Keith R.</creatorcontrib><title>Prospective, Randomized Evaluation of Early Removal of Nasogastric Tubes in Postceliotomy Trauma Patients</title><title>The American surgeon</title><addtitle>Am Surg</addtitle><description>The objective of this study is to compare early (24-hour) removal of nasogastric tubes (NGTs) in trauma patients who have undergone emergency celiotomy to removal based on clinical signs of return of bowel function. All trauma patients who underwent an emergency celiotomy between November 1994 and August 1997 were randomized to 24-hour NGT removal, or removal when flatus and decreased NG output indicated. Exclusion criteria included patients with duodenal or esophageal injuries, those with airway intubations that were &gt;24 hours, or those who had undergone same-hospitalization repeat celiotomy. Gastric or severity of intestinal injury were not exclusion criteria. Failure of NGT removal was defined as pain, abdominal distention, and vomiting. Mechanisms of injury, Injury Severity Score, operative findings, NGT removal times, morbidity, laboratory data, and reasons for failure were evaluated. A total of 177 patients qualified for the study. Two patients were inappropriately randomized and subsequently excluded. Of the remaining 175 patients, 151 sustained penetrating injuries and 24 sustained blunt injuries. Of the 151 patients in the penetrating injury group, 68 were randomized to the 24-hour pull (study) group and 83 were randomized to the clinical pull (control) group. There were three failures in the study group [3 of 68 patients (4.4%)] and three failures in the control group [3 of 83 patients (3.6%)]. Of the 24 blunt injury patients, 10 were randomized to the study group and 14 were randomized to the control group. There was one failure in the study group [1 of 10 patients (10.0%)] and one failure in the control group [1 of 14 patients (7.1%)]. Overall failure rate for the study group was 5.1 per cent [(3+l)/(68+10) = 5.1%] versus 4.1 per cent for the control group. Overall failure for all patients in the study was 4.6 per cent. Injury severity score, morbidity, and lab values were not significantly different. It is safe to remove NGTs at 24 hours in most trauma patients regardless of the severity of injury (failure rate, 5.1%). The surgical dogma of the need to have an NGT in longer for blunt trauma was not revealed in this study, however, a larger study would be needed to determine this with significance.</description><subject>Abdominal Injuries - surgery</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Digestive system</subject><subject>Hemoglobins - analysis</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Injury Severity Score</subject><subject>Intubation, Gastrointestinal</subject><subject>Length of Stay</subject><subject>Leukocyte Count</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Postoperative Complications</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Statistics, Nonparametric</subject><subject>Stomach, duodenum, intestine, rectum, anus</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</subject><subject>Surgery of the digestive system</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><issn>0003-1348</issn><issn>1555-9823</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kW9L5DAQxoN46PrnCwhCEPHV9TaTNG3zUpZVD-RuWdbXZZqmEmmbNWmF9dObZRcFD-7VMDO_eeZhhpALYL8A8nzKGBMg0kIplknGAPgBmYCUMlEFF4dksgWSLXFMTkJ4iWmaSTgiR0pFTPAJsQvvwtrowb6Zn3SJfe06-25qOn_DdsTBup66hs7Rtxu6NJ2L5W3hDwb3jGHwVtPVWJlAbU8XLgzatNYNrtvQlcexQ7qIIqYfwhn50WAbzPk-npKnu_lq9pA8_r3_Pbt9TLRQ6ZBAU3MotJC5VjKtC57zCmoJCCBRVoqJyuiMYyZYqk1dqaI2wEBUOS9Uqrg4JTc73bV3r6MJQ9nZEF212Bs3hjJTUqqMZxG8-ga-uNH30VvJgedxe55HiO8gHe8UvGnKtbcd-k0JrNw-ofz3CXHocq88Vp2pP0f2V4_9630fg8a28dhrG76UsxQglRGb7rCAz-bL3H8WfwDnbJsd</recordid><startdate>199901</startdate><enddate>199901</enddate><creator>Knoepp, Louis F.</creator><creator>Thomae, Keith R.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Southeastern Surgical Congress</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8AF</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9-</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0R</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199901</creationdate><title>Prospective, Randomized Evaluation of Early Removal of Nasogastric Tubes in Postceliotomy Trauma Patients</title><author>Knoepp, Louis F. ; Thomae, Keith R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c394t-1fd218c357c954d8272b1d51a115a5b903bec62a6304cedb98de1013b72894923</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Abdominal Injuries - surgery</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Digestive system</topic><topic>Hemoglobins - analysis</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Injury Severity Score</topic><topic>Intubation, Gastrointestinal</topic><topic>Length of Stay</topic><topic>Leukocyte Count</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Postoperative Complications</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Statistics, Nonparametric</topic><topic>Stomach, duodenum, intestine, rectum, anus</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases</topic><topic>Surgery of the digestive system</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Knoepp, Louis F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thomae, Keith R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>STEM Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Consumer Health Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The American surgeon</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Knoepp, Louis F.</au><au>Thomae, Keith R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Prospective, Randomized Evaluation of Early Removal of Nasogastric Tubes in Postceliotomy Trauma Patients</atitle><jtitle>The American surgeon</jtitle><addtitle>Am Surg</addtitle><date>1999-01</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>65</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>52</spage><epage>54</epage><pages>52-54</pages><issn>0003-1348</issn><eissn>1555-9823</eissn><coden>AMSUAW</coden><abstract>The objective of this study is to compare early (24-hour) removal of nasogastric tubes (NGTs) in trauma patients who have undergone emergency celiotomy to removal based on clinical signs of return of bowel function. All trauma patients who underwent an emergency celiotomy between November 1994 and August 1997 were randomized to 24-hour NGT removal, or removal when flatus and decreased NG output indicated. Exclusion criteria included patients with duodenal or esophageal injuries, those with airway intubations that were &gt;24 hours, or those who had undergone same-hospitalization repeat celiotomy. Gastric or severity of intestinal injury were not exclusion criteria. Failure of NGT removal was defined as pain, abdominal distention, and vomiting. Mechanisms of injury, Injury Severity Score, operative findings, NGT removal times, morbidity, laboratory data, and reasons for failure were evaluated. A total of 177 patients qualified for the study. Two patients were inappropriately randomized and subsequently excluded. Of the remaining 175 patients, 151 sustained penetrating injuries and 24 sustained blunt injuries. Of the 151 patients in the penetrating injury group, 68 were randomized to the 24-hour pull (study) group and 83 were randomized to the clinical pull (control) group. There were three failures in the study group [3 of 68 patients (4.4%)] and three failures in the control group [3 of 83 patients (3.6%)]. Of the 24 blunt injury patients, 10 were randomized to the study group and 14 were randomized to the control group. There was one failure in the study group [1 of 10 patients (10.0%)] and one failure in the control group [1 of 14 patients (7.1%)]. Overall failure rate for the study group was 5.1 per cent [(3+l)/(68+10) = 5.1%] versus 4.1 per cent for the control group. Overall failure for all patients in the study was 4.6 per cent. Injury severity score, morbidity, and lab values were not significantly different. It is safe to remove NGTs at 24 hours in most trauma patients regardless of the severity of injury (failure rate, 5.1%). The surgical dogma of the need to have an NGT in longer for blunt trauma was not revealed in this study, however, a larger study would be needed to determine this with significance.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>9915532</pmid><doi>10.1177/000313489906500112</doi><tpages>3</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-1348
ispartof The American surgeon, 1999-01, Vol.65 (1), p.52-54
issn 0003-1348
1555-9823
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69559626
source MEDLINE; SAGE Complete A-Z List
subjects Abdominal Injuries - surgery
Biological and medical sciences
Digestive system
Hemoglobins - analysis
Humans
Injury Severity Score
Intubation, Gastrointestinal
Length of Stay
Leukocyte Count
Medical research
Medical sciences
Postoperative Complications
Prospective Studies
Statistics, Nonparametric
Stomach, duodenum, intestine, rectum, anus
Surgery
Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases
Surgery of the digestive system
Time Factors
title Prospective, Randomized Evaluation of Early Removal of Nasogastric Tubes in Postceliotomy Trauma Patients
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-15T04%3A09%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Prospective,%20Randomized%20Evaluation%20of%20Early%20Removal%20of%20Nasogastric%20Tubes%20in%20Postceliotomy%20Trauma%20Patients&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20surgeon&rft.au=Knoepp,%20Louis%20F.&rft.date=1999-01&rft.volume=65&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=52&rft.epage=54&rft.pages=52-54&rft.issn=0003-1348&rft.eissn=1555-9823&rft.coden=AMSUAW&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/000313489906500112&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E38003718%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=212795477&rft_id=info:pmid/9915532&rft_sage_id=10.1177_000313489906500112&rfr_iscdi=true