[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]
January 26, 1924


JAMA. 1924;82(4):287-291. doi:10.1001/jama.1924.02650300033008

The attention of urologists and surgeons is constantly being called to the brilliant reports on the mortality record of perineal surgery, on both the prostate and seminal vesicles. My interest in perineal prostatectomy was stimulated by a series of seminal vesicle operations which always healed kindly and which also gave me wider experience in perineal anatomy.

For several years I endeavored to select my cases as best suited for the perineal or the suprapubic route, but for the last two and a half years I have adopted the perineal route as a routine. Recent reports by Young, Hinman, Geraghty, Crowell and Thompson on the en masse enucleation through the perineum prompted me to try their modifications in a small series of cases. The results were somewhat unsatisfactory, as to both healing and function. Having lost fear of damaging the anterior part of the prostatic urethra by en masse enucleations about