[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
February 16, 1918


Author Affiliations

Fellow of the American College of Surgeons KANSAS CITY, MO.

JAMA. 1918;70(7):441-442. doi:10.1001/jama.1918.02600070015005

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


In the past few months I have had occasion to reoperate in five cases of prostatic obstruction in which a suprapubic prostatectomy had previously been done.

One of these cases was one in which I, myself, had operated. The other operations had been done by men of experience in Kansas City and elsewhere. In two of the cases I assisted the original operator to correct the secondary obstruction.

The usual history of these patients was of their having made a good recovery from the operation, of having left the hospital in good condition in from four to six weeks, voiding urine well and being apparently cured. From that time on, the size of the stream would progressively diminish, and it would become more difficult to void. Finally the suprapubic wound would reopen and remain open, and the passage through the urethra become closed, or nearly so.

In the case in

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview