This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Surgical Physiology  • Surgical Infections  • Alert me on articles by topic

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

To the Editor: In their study of hyperoxia and infection, Dr Belda and colleagues¹ critique a similar study² in which we urged caution before universal adoption of elective hyperoxia. We are concerned about their representation of our results.

The infection rate in our study was described by Akça and Sessler (one of the authors of the present study) as "far exceed[ing] those reported in any large study of comparable operations."³ Although a similar rate was found by Belda et al, it is now described as "well within values reported in recent series." The authors claim that our infection evaluation was "apparently conducted by unblinded investigators." However, our article stated that "[a]n investigator blinded to the randomization performed the evaluation for evidence of infection."²

Although Belda et al criticize heterogeneity between our study groups, at issue is whether statistically significant differences had clinical significance. The difference in blood loss between the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Kane O. Pryor, MD
kap9009@med.cornell.edu

Cynthia A. Lien, MD; Thomas J. Fahey III, MD; Peter A. Goldstein, MD
Weill Medical College of Cornell University
New York, NY