PEDIATRICS Vol. 19 No. 6 June 1957, pp. 1150-1151
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by REICHELDERFER, T. E.
Right arrow Articles by NITOWSKY, H. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by REICHELDERFER, T. E.
Right arrow Articles by NITOWSKY, H. M.

Letters to the Editor

THOMAS E. REICHELDERFER M.D. and HAROLD M. NITOWSKY M.D.

We appreciate the opportunity of responding to the betters of Dr. Allan Bloxsom and Dr. R. B. Tudor, and we would like to make the following comments:

First, concerning the duration of exposure of infants in the air lock, this was selected because of three factors. The first of these was the experience cited in Bloxsom's report on the use of the air lock (J.A.M.A., 146:1120, 1951) where 98% of a group of 50 full-term infants and 58% of 50 premature infants (not 44%, as noted in his letter) who required resuscitation were kept in the air lock for 12 hours or less.