This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • 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 this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Arch Neurol. 1986;43(12):1223.

	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.—

As the section editor of the "Controversies in Neurology" section of the ARCHIVES, I appreciate Dr Davenport's provocative style. On the other hand, it is difficult to have a controversy when one's partner in the debate does not appear to know where one stands, or when one does not know where he stands. In my comment,¹ I stated that "most intraoperative strokes are embolic and not hemodynamic," ie, they cannot be predicted by intraoperative monitoring. I also said that "Dr Ferguson is now prepared to consider the hypothesis that a small subgroup of patients with severe electroencephalographic change and mean stump pressures of 25 mm Hg or less may benefit from routine shunting" (my italics). In Dr Ferguson's own words: "But, it must be emphasized that this hypothesis has yet to be proven."² Moreover, in the concluding sentence of my comment I subscribed to Dr Ferguson's view that . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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