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?

Gary G. Ferguson, MD, FRCS(C)
Department of Clinical Neurological Science The University of Western Ontario PO Box 5339, Station A London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5A5

Arch Neurol. 1988;45(1):15.

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

To the Editor.

—I am pleased to have an opportunity to comment on Dr Davenport's letter.¹ Despite his assertion, careful reading of my article² will demonstrate that there is no inconsistency in the numbers I report. However, the cryptic style imposed by the format of CONTROVERSIES INNEUROLOGY may have contributed to a lack of clarity. To reiterate, of 282 consecutive endarterectomies, intraoperative electroencephalographic (EEG) monitoring was available in 211 cases and carotid stump pressure measurements in 131 cases. Simultaneous EEG monitoring was available in only 113 of the 131 cases with stump pressure measurements, and it is in those 113 cases that a direct comparison between the two monitoring techniques was made. Nine of the 113 cases had mean stump pressures equal to or less than 25 mm Hg. However, of the total of 131 cases with stump pressure measurements, 121 had mean stump pressures greater than 25 . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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