This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by WHITSON, R. O.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by WHITSON, R. O.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, 1951;33:447-450.
© 1951 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc

A CRITIQUE OF FAT EMBOLISM

ROBERT O. WHITSON M.D.1

1 BAYTOWN, TEXAS

If one takes a critical attitude and demands proof, a survey of the literature fails to show convincing evidence in favor of the theory of fat embolism. On the other hand, it appears evident that the diagnosis of fat embolism as a cause of death should be discontinued in favor of anoxyaemia. The etiology of the anoxyaemia may be the aberrations of body fluids following severe trauma, or it may be a non-traumatic disorder of body chemistry.

The persistence of the concept of fat embolism has been a hindrance to the understanding and treatment of certain post-traumatic complications. The etiology and prevention of these disorders are not yet understood.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?