This Article  • References  • 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 this journal

MARTIN PERLMUTTER, M.D.; HAROLD B. HERMANN, M.D.

AMA Arch Intern Med. 1953;91(6):808-811.

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

THE VALUE of nephrectomy as a possible cure for hypertension in patients having unilateral renal disease has been the subject of markedly divergent opinions. Braash,¹ after presenting the favorable two-year follow-up data of 100 patients who had nephrectomy, concluded that his results should eliminate doubt that unilateral renal lesions can cause hypertension and that removal of a diseased kidney can effect cure. His patients had no symptoms of urological disease and were operated upon solely to cure their hypertension. Smith,² on the other hand, reached a less optimistic conclusion after a critical analysis of 47 reported cures as well as a thorough review of the literature pertaining to unilateral renal disease as a cause of hypertension. He stated that the advisability of nephrectomy must rest upon recognized surgical indications and not upon the hope of reducing hypertension.

The following case report presents an apparent two-year "cure" of hypertension . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
NEW YORK

From the Departments of Medicine and Surgery (Urology), Maimonides Hospital of Brooklyn, and the College of Medicine, State University of New York at New York City.