The purpose of this symposium was to clarify clinical significance of the pulse diagnosis at the wrist used for detecting the function of various organs. Base of the literature survey and his personal experiences, the importance of reliability (reproducibility) test of the pulse diagnosis in blinded manner and necessity of clinical trials with “_??_”-specific intervention was proposed by Ogawa. A unique training program of the pulse diagnosis was introduced by Kido, and he also demonstrated a significant positive result of “_??_”-specific intervention determined by the pulse diagnosis procedure in his program and suggested the clinical significance of the pulse diagnosis. Detection of various changes in pulse waveforms at the wrist using pressure transducer was demonstrated by Maruyama, and he also suggested a possible progress of objectivity in pulse diagnosis by various sensors and biomedical devices in future. From circulatory physiological point of view, factors which may affect the pressure pulse wave at the wrist were explained with several examples of pathologic conditions by Chihara. He also suggested a possibility of reflection of general condition in the pressure pulse at the wrist although it might be partial one, and stressed the necessity of other information for the accurate diagnosis. In general discussion, it was pointed out that evidence of the pulse diagnosis was still limited, and further experimental approaches of the pulse diagnosis will be required.

From January 1987 to October 1992, 60 consecutive patients operated on for infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) were reviewed to evaluate the effect of previous laparotomies giving on the results of aneurysmal surgery. Eleven of 60 patients had previous laparotomies. Two of them required emergency operation for ruptured aneurysms. One of them died during surgery as a result of excessive hemorrhage prior to cross-clamping the aorta. Severe peritoneal adhesion had made if difficult to properly expose the aorta for cross-clamping to control hemorrhage. There were no statistical significance in mortality between the previous laparotomy and non-laparotomy groups. Excluding ruptured cases, we compared the previous laparotomy group (9 patients) and non-laparotomy group (37 patients) with reference to perioperative factors, including operation time, blood loss, non-oral feeding days, bed-ridden days, and hospital stay but there were no statistically significant differences. These results suggested that previous laparotomy is not a serious risk factor in operations for AAA.