[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
February 4, 1899


Author Affiliations


JAMA. 1899;XXXII(5):223-224. doi:10.1001/jama.1899.92450320015001d

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


If we are to draw our conclusions from society discussions, both in this country and abroad, the conviction is forced upon us that there is a greater diversity of opinion in regard to the management of pelvic suppuration than that of any other surgical lesion. Before asepsis had rendered celiotomy so uniformly successful, large pus collections in the pelvis were merely punctured through the vaginal vault; later the abdominal vault was looked upon as the only method deserving of recognition.

The French and Belgian schools next began the practice of doing almost everything by the vaginal route, advocating hysterectomy in all cases of double tubal suppuration. Several Germans and Americans adopted the same line of procedure, while their teachings were energetically opposed by a large number who advocated the abdominal route of attack.

So dogmatic have become the teachings of men practicing the one or the other of these methods

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