Esmarch, antisepsis and bacillus : the annual address delivered before the Philadelphia Academy of Surgery, January 8, 1883 / by William Hunt.

  • William Hunt
Date:
1883
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Esmarch, antisepsis and bacillus : the annual address delivered before the Philadelphia Academy of Surgery, January 8, 1883 / by William Hunt. 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.

    12/26 page 10
    IO to recover, but that he ought to recover, through mod- ern methods properly applied, it is hard to conceive. Then follow the conclusions of the Holstein Pro- fessor, thus: E.: “i. President Garfield did not receive an abso- lutely deadly wound. The liver was not injured ; the peritoneal sac was not injured; there was no peri- tonitis ; altogether there was no important organ in- jured, with the exception of the vertebral colmnn! The injury of the vertebral bodies was not of itself mortal. Healing might have readily occurred if putre- factive ichor (verjauchung) had not set in. In military surgery there are examples enough of recovery from similar injuries. H.: Instead of giving any such examples, here fol- lows a long foot-note about deer shooting, thus: Note, “Every hunter knows that the stag mostly survives a peculiar shot, the so-called hohlschuss. This is a shot by which neither the viscera, nor the great bloodvessels, nor the spinal cord are injured. As the great vessels lie directly below the faces of the vertebral bodies, and the spinal cord directly above them, the ball, in this case, must go directly through a vertebral body itself. If the cord is wounded, the stag, on account of the paralysis of his hinder extremities, cannot take to his heels when the hunter comes to give him the final stab. “ If the descending aorta or the inferior vena cava is injured, he does not fall immediately, but very soon after the shot, on account of the great hemorrhage. The ‘ Hohlschuss ’ is considered to be a bad one by the hunters, because by it they do not secure the game. It is also of no great consequence, because no surgeon comes to the rescue with fingers and probes, which carry corrupting causes into the wound.” H.: Allow me to suggest also that neither spray nor antiseptic dressings are at the service of the poor stag. “Pity ’tis, ’tis true.” This is a point for the open method. To go on: “ Equally also the game is not killed or secured when it receives a shot that only wounds the spinous processes. In this case the stag falls because the hinder extremities are paralyzed momentarily by spinal shock. When the hunter approaches, however, the stag strug-
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3