A case where lithotomy was twice performed within fourteen months, with remarks on the recurrence of stone in the bladder / by Reginald Harrison.

  • Harrison, Reginald, 1837-1908.
Date:
[1886]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A case where lithotomy was twice performed within fourteen months, with remarks on the recurrence of stone in the bladder / by Reginald Harrison. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    3/10
    A Case where Lithotomy was 'ifek-e Performed ivithin Four- teen Months, with Bemarlckon the Recurrence of Stone in the Bladder. By Reginald Harrison, F.R.C.S., Surgeon to the Liverpool Royal Infirmary, and Lecturer on Clinical Surgery in the Victoria University. [Reprinted from the Liverpool Medico-Gkirurgical Journal, January 1886.] Cases of recurring stone in the bladder requiring removal by lithotomy are sufficiently rare as to need no apology for their narration. The particulars of this instance are as follows. Thomas S., set. 62, was admitted into the Royal Infirmary in July 1884, suffering from symptoms of stone. On examina- tion it was found that the bladder contained more than one calculus. The prostate was large, and considerably impeded the introduction of the necessary instruments for sounding and exploring the bladder. Under these circumstances I selected lithotomy, with the view not only of removing the stone but of improving the condition of the prostatic urethra by the method I have already brought under notice.1 On July 25, 1884, I performed lateral lithotomy, and made a free section of the prostate, which, by the elevation of its floor from hypertrophy, rendered access to the bladder difficult. With the forceps I removed two ounces and a quarter of stone, which broke in removal. Allowing for portions that were lost during this piece-meal extraction, the stones must have weighed about three ounces. The calculi were chiefly phosphatic, as will be seen, but with some urates. The bladder was carefully explored both with straight and curved forceps, with the finger, and finally was well washed out from the wound with a Higginson's syringe. The section of the prostate referred to rendered these various manipulations quite easy. One of my bladder drainage tubes was introduced. There was some free oozing after the operation, which necessitated a plug of lint- soaked in turpentine being inserted by the side of the tube. The patient made a good recovery; the bladder drainage tube, On the Treatment of certain Cases of Prostatic Obstruction by a Section of the Gland, Transactions International Medical Congress, Copenhagen, 1884.