This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

HARRY ROSENWASSER, M.D.

Arch Otolaryngol. 1940;32(1):38-53.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Many years ago it was rather generally believed that the diagnosis of a malignant growth involving the middle ear once having been established, the prognosis was uniformly hopeless. Before the advent of modern radiotherapy and electrocoagulation the earlier literature abounds with reports such as those of Schwartze,¹ Toynbee,² Wilde,³ Pomeroy⁴ and others, who expressed the opinion that operation seemed to accelerate the rate of growth of the neoplasm. After this, there was an era characterized by reports such as those by Kretschmann⁵ and others, who stated the belief that aural neoplasms should be operated on not because a cure could be effected but because relief of pain and diminution in the amount of foul-smelling discharge frequently resulted. The attitude toward the treatment of neoplasms involving the middle ear and mastoid bone has entered what may be termed a third stage, in which the conclusion has now been stated (by Holmgren,⁶ . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
NEW YORK

From the Otologic Service of Dr. Jacob L. Maybaum, the Mount Sinai Hospital.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?