From the study of recent literature and also from personal observation, I am impressed by the great difference of opinion that exists concerning the treatment of puerperal infection. My investigations indicate that too much local treatment continues in use, mostly the result of tradition. The clinician has not kept pace with the pathologist in the study of infections and immunity.
I. EXTRACTS FROM GERMAN AND AMERICAN LITERATURE ON PUERPERAL INFECTION
Schottmüller1 is credited with reawakening interest in study of anaerobic infection in puerperal sepsis; he showed anaerobes in the blood and demonstrated that they are a frequent cause of thrombophlebitis.Bondy2 reports one hundred abortions of which eleven were from anaerobic streptococcus infections. In one of these cases lie obtained the anaerobic streptococci in pure culture from the blood and in one from a pelvic exudate.Fellner3 believes in non-interference except when retained tissues cause severe intoxication
WATKINS TJ. PUERPERAL INFECTION: A STUDY OF SOME OF THE MOST INTERESTING AND PRACTICAL FEATURES OF THE DISEASE. JAMA. 1912;LIX(9):703–708. doi:10.1001/jama.1912.04270080385005
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: