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  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Walter W. Whisler, MD, PhD
Chicago

JAMA. 1985;253(7):978.

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

In Reply.—

A postmarketing surveillance survey of over 70,000 injections performed by Smith Laboratories, reported an associated lower frequency of anaphylaxis under local anesthesia v under general anesthesia (0.4% v 0.6%, respectively) (product information letter, Smith Laboratories, June 1, 1984, p 3). The postmarketing surveillance forms are filled out in the operating room by the physician and anesthesiologist. The error of this type of reporting lies in the fact that all cases of allergic reaction are not anaphylactic reactions, so, although the anesthesiologist may have termed them "anaphylactic reactions," in reality, they might have been allergic reactions.

There is no doubt that there is more polypharmacy involved with general anesthesia than local anesthesia, and, with the use of a large number of drugs, the chance for an allergic reaction is higher than with the use of a smaller number of drugs. Because of the nature of the procedures, a larger . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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