Inversion of the appendix and caecum / by W.J. Greer.

  • Greer, W.J.
Date:
1909
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Inversion of the appendix and caecum / by W.J. Greer. 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.

    7/8 page 5
    irregular peristalsis, etc.—usually assigned as causative of the process of invagination contributed to the result. It will be clear that the caecum must have been freely movable, and its absence from the field at the early stages of the operation gave a semblance to a case of undescended caecum. References. Of the following 30 references, making in all 27 cases, 20 are found in the works of Messrs. Battle and Corner and Kelly and Eurdon. The additional cases have been discovered with the assistance of the librarians at the Royal College of Surgeons of England, British Medical Association, and Royal Society of Medicine. In examining the reports of all the cases, whilst in most inversion of the appendix is clearly indicated, yet in others it is not certain that anything more was found than mere enclosure or invagination of the appendix in a depressed pouch of caecum. 1. McKidd : Edinburgh Medical Journal, 1858-9, iv, 793. 2. Treves : Intestinal Obstruction, 1899, p. 181. 3. Chaffey: Lancet, 1888, ii, 17. 4. Knight: Case of Acute Intussusception of Caecum and Appendix, New Zealand Medical Journal, Dunedin, 1890-1, vol. 4, pp. 106-8. 5. Greig Smith: Abdominal Surgery, 1896, vol. ii, p. 678. 6. D’Arcy Power : Case mentioned in a discussion, British Medical. •Journal. 1897. i 7. Harrison: Case of Intussusception of the Vermiform Appendix, Treatment, London, 1897, i, pp 415-18 (This appears to be the identical case reported by Mr. Waterhouse.) 8. McGraw: British Medical Journal, 1897. ii, 956. 9. Pitts : Lancet, 1897. i, 1602. 10. Waterhouse ■ Pathological Transactions, London, xlix, p. 108 ; Lancet. 1897, ii, 1319. 11. Wright and Renshaw: British Medical Journal, 1897, i, 1470. 12 Lees: Lancet, 1898, i, pp. 1400-1. 13. Rolleston: Edinburgh Medical Journal, 1898, N.S. iv. 21-26. 14. Colman : Trans. Clin. Soc. Lond., 1898, vol. xxxi, p. 227. 15. Enderlen : Milnch. med. Woch., 1900, July, 1901. 16 Monsarrat: Liverpool Medico-Chirurgical Journal. 1901. xxi, 68-78. 17. Maasler: Archiv filr klinische Ghirurgie, 1902, Band lxviii, Cases 3 and 9, pp. 823, 836, 18 Bishop: Chironian, New York, 1902-3. 19. Ackermann: Beitrdge filr klinische Chirurgie, 1905, xxxvii, 579. 20. Corner: Annals of Surgery, 1903, xxxviii, 708 21 Haldane: Scottish Medical and Surgical Journal, 1903, xii, 4, p. 333. 22. Hogarth : British Medical Journal, 1903, i, p. 850 23. O’Connor: Lancet, 1903, ii, p. 600 24. Westermann: Wieblad van Neederlander, Tydsclirift von Genes- kunde, No. 24; also abstract in Beitr. f. klin. Chir., 1903, vol. iii, p. 585 25. Battle and Corner : Diseases of the Appendix, 1904. 26. Baldwin : Intussusception of Appendix Vermiformis, American Medicine, Philadelphia. 1905, ix, p. 556. (This is not a record of a case, but a criticism of Dr. Brewer’s case.) 27. Brewer : Intussusception of Appendix Vermiformis, American Medicine, 1905, ix, p. 67. 28. Kelly and Hurdon : The Vermiform Appendix and its Diseases, 1905. 29. Grisel: Two cases quoted in Maladies du tube digestif, Debove, Achard, Castaigne, 1908, vol. ii, p. 333. 30 Back: A Case of Acute Inflammation of an Appendix involuted into the Caecum, Proceedings of the Boyal Society of Medicine, vol. iii, No. 1, November, 1909.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3