Search

The marked operative tendency which existed among gynecologists toward the end of the last century was naturally followed by a more conservative era. Signs were not wanting that the pendulum had reached the limit of its swing toward the operative side and that its return movement had begun. At one of the New York medical societies Emmet ridiculed the common occurrence of presenting large jars with uterine adnexa at gynecologic meetings. Ramy, 1 in a warning against operating without indication, ironically called attention to the fact that at some gynecologic meetings the surgeons who reported the most radical operations on the female genital organs received the greatest recognition. After these and similar warnings the question naturally arose whether it was not possible to attain normal conditions or nearly such in the female pelvis with non-operative methods. It is not to be denied that the non-operative treatment often requires weeks to

In recent literature it has been usual to speak of the conservative surgery of the uterine adnexa as though it were one subject. In point of fact, the resection of diseased tubes and the conservation of the ovaries belonging to them is usually brought to our attention in inflammatory cases and the question then hinges mainly on the condition of the tube, i. e., on the possibility of its restoration to functional value, as balanced against the possibility of reinfection of the pelvis from the patent stump. In this class of cases the condition of the ovary is usually a subordinate matter. These cases are etiologically in a different class from those which present normal tubes and neoplastic ovaries. They are also distinct clinically since in the latter class the decision rests wholly on the state of the ovary. I believe that confusion has been wrought, that clearness of thought

n/a

n/a