[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.226.244.70. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
August 31, 1895

REMOTE RESULTS OF REMOVAL OF UTERINE APPENDAGES.

Author Affiliations

PHILADELPHIA, PA.

JAMA. 1895;XXV(9):364-365. doi:10.1001/jama.1895.02430350020002e

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

The introduction of the operation for removal of the tubes and ovaries as advocated almost simultaneously by Battey, Tait and Hegar, though upon distinctly different lines, opened up an extensive field for the practice of abdominal surgery. The enthusiasm of their followers necessarily resulted in the practice of the procedure in many cases when it was of doubtful utility. Battey advocated the operation for intolerable dysmenorrhea; Tait for distinctly recognizable pathologic lesions in tubes and ovaries, principally of an inflammatory character; Hegar to produce an artificial menopause in cases of uterine hemorrhage otherwise uncontrollable.

These distinctly defined indications soon became extended, so that pelvic pain of slight degree, whether associated with menstruation or not, has been considered an excuse for the removal of the organs. Ovaries and tubes have been removed in which careful macroscopic investigation has failed to disclose much, if any, evidence of disease.

The experience of over

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