[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]
Other Articles
May 12, 1951


Author Affiliations

Columbus, Ohio

From the Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Ohio State University College of Medicine.

JAMA. 1951;146(2):100-105. doi:10.1001/jama.1951.03670020022007

With the advent of modern surgery, it was to be expected that surgical removal of the uterus should become commonplace. The practice of performing the supracervical (subtotal) type of hysterectomy made it inevitable that there should be a certain incidence of malignant disease arising in the cervical stump at a later date. Since the first report, in 1896 by Chrobak,1 numerous accounts of this condition have appeared in the literature.2

Basically, cancer arising in the cervical stump at a date remote from hysterectomy differs little in symptomatology, histological diagnosis or clinical behavior from cervical cancer occurring in the presence of the uterine fundus. Inasmuch as the chief factor setting these cases apart from the usual form of carcinoma of the cervix is the previous supracervical extirpation, it is probable that the incidence of carcinoma of the cervical stump varies directly with the number of times the supracervical operation