[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
August 31, 1895

NOTES ON TWO CASES OF PELVIC SURGERY.

Author Affiliations

PORTLAND, ORE.

JAMA. 1895;XXV(9):350-351. doi:10.1001/jama.1895.02430350006002

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

Abstract

These cases I report, as throwing some light on the philosophy of ventrofixation:

Case 1.  —Mrs. K., age 46. married twenty years; 2-para; youngest child 18 years of age. Seen first in June, 1892. Complained of menorrhagia. Five curettements had been done without much, if any, benefit. Perineum had been attempted by Tait's method which had not given satisfaction. In fact, there was yet a pronounced flatus vaginalis. The first thing I did for the patient was to curette the uterus carefully and pack it with iodoform gauze, and at the same time do an Emmet operation to repair the pelvic floor. The latter was a happy success, in so far as it restored the function of the pelvic floor, but this statement may be questioned, when I admit that it did not raise the uterus as high as its normal place, nor change it from its position in the

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