Anaesthesia, or the employment of chloroform and ether in surgery, midwifery, etc. / by J.Y. Simpson.

  • Simpson, James Young, 1811-1870.
Date:
1849
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Anaesthesia, or the employment of chloroform and ether in surgery, midwifery, etc. / by J.Y. Simpson. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library at Yale University, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library at Yale University.

    71/252 (page 71)
    perience or individual opinion could. In Table No. I (see p. 72 and 73), these results are given in a detailed form, with the names of the gentlemen who kindly reported each return to me.* GENERAL MORTALITY OF AMPUTATIONS OF THE THIGH, LEG, AND ARM, WITHOUT ETHERIZATION. Before attempting to determine whether the results in these ether amputations (Table, No. I.) are, or are not favourable to the adoption of Anaesthesia in Surgery, let me in the first place state the results of the previous investigations that have been published by Phillips, Lawrie, and Malgaigne, relating to the mortality of these same amputations, when the same operations were performed without ether. In the year 1837, Mr. Benja- min Phillips brought before the Royal Medico-Chirurgical So- ciety of London, a communicationf on the results of amputa- tion of the thigh, leg, and arm, in diflerent countries. From the collection of cases which he laid before the society, Mr. Phillips concluded that the general mortality of these larger amputations amounted to 23 deaths in the 100 operations. The correctness, however, of his conclusions was called in question by the publishing committee of the society, on the idea that the alleged mortality was too great, and he was recom- mended to investigate the subject more fully before proceeding to publish his observations. Further inquiry served only to satisfy him that his previous results were understated rather than overstated. Subsequently, in 1844, Mr. Phillips published a table of a still more extensive series of cases.J This collection, however, includes the results of private as well as of hospital practice. They are (says Mr. Phillips) the whole, so far as I know, of the cases of amputation recorded in the periodical literature of this and other countries during the present century. I by no means (Mr. Phillips adds) think that the results furnished by such data will fairly represent the mortality. I believe it will be undnrstated, because successful cases are more likely than unsuccessful ones to find their way into print. The table (No. II. p. 74), extracted from Mr. Phillips's second paper, shows in a summary way the results which he obtained from these sources. * In No. 49 of the Table, the name of the hospital is not mentioned, as my cor- respondent unfortunately omitted to date his return. The Paris hospital returns of twenty-two cases (No. 40) are distributed according to the standard of Mal- gaigne ; Dr. Burguiferes, in a note to me, having stated that he was unable to give the exact number of these amputations which were respectively primary and secondary. t Observations on the Results of Amputation in different Countries. Medical Gazette, vol. xxii., 1837-38. P. 457. } Medical Gazette, vol. xxxiii., 1843-44. P. 804.