Observations on lithotomy; being a republication of Dr. James Douglas' 'Appendix' [and 'Postscript'] to his History of the lateral operation for the stone, and of the other original papers relative to Mr. Cheselden's invention and improvement of that operation. To which is added, a proposal for a new manner of cutting for the stone, by John Thomson / [John Thomson].

  • Thomson, John, 1765-1846
Date:
1808
    # i I
    TO THE STUDENTS OF SURGERY, IN EDINBURGH. GENTLEMEN, I HAVE been induced to become the Editor of Dr. James Douglas ac* count of Mr. Cheseldens improved Method of Operating for the Stone, from a belief that Mr. Cheselden’s operation, at one time so justly regarded as the pride of English surgerj^, is now but very imperfectly known. I have met with but few surgeons who had ever seen the original description of this operation; and of those w ho have attempted to give an account of it in their writings, some describe an operation which Mr. Cheselden had himself abandoned, while b
    Vl others, in their account of his improved me¬ thod, omit circumstances, a minute attention to which in the performance of the operation, that great surgeon considered as essentially necessary to ensure its success. What the reasons were which induced English surgeons to relinquish, in their opera¬ tions, Mr. CheseldeiVs manner of dividing the neck of the bladder and prostate gland, it may not now be easy to ascertain; but a fair and accurate comparison of his manner with the supposed improvements which have since been suggested, cannot fail, I think, to convince every impartial inquirer that Mr. Cheselden’s operation still remains unrivalled in the sim¬ plicity of the invention, and in the facility and security with which it may be performed. It may seem strange, therefore, that to this republication of Dr. Douglas' account I should venture to add a proposal for a new manner of cutting for the stone. This manner I do not venture to propose as an improvement on Mr. Cheselden’s operation, though I am in- dined to hope that it will be found, on trial, *1 • ■ less liable to objections than that performed
    with any of the cutting gorgets now in use. I am aware, however, that the manner of opera¬ ting which I have proposed may, in some res¬ pects, appear to be a variation on a method first described by M. Le Dran, in the year 1742. That you may, at one glance, see the points in which it agrees with, and in which it dif¬ fers from that of M. Le Dran^ I have given M. Le Dran’s account’ of his operation in his own words. The past history of our art, and particularly that branch of it which relates to Lithotomy, shows but too clearly, that this is the only way in which dead authors, at least, are likely to have their opinions correctly and fairly stated. Among the various methods of cutting for the stone which have been suggested by those who, since the time of Mr. Che- selden, have laboured unavailingly to improve upon his operation, that of M. Le Dran ap¬ pears to me to be indeed the simplest and safest in its execution; yet M. Le Dran's method has met with but little, if any attention, frorp those, M. Deschamp excepted, who have de¬ scribed or practised the operation for the stone. My proposal will probably meet with a siini-
    Vlll lar fate; but I shall regret this the less, if the present publication shall tend, in any degree, to recal the attention of English surgeons to Mr. Cheseldeif s improved method of operat¬ ing, or convey to you accurate information respecting it. To enable you to perceive readily the dif¬ ferent steps by which Mr. Cheselden was led to adopt this method, and to render the his¬ tory of it as complete as possible, I have judged it necessary to prefix to Dr. Douglas* Appendix, his Postscript to the History of the Lateral Operation,** and to subjoin to that Appendix the last edition of the Short Histo¬ rical Account of Cutting for the Stone,’* which Mr. Cheselden first added to the fourth edition of his Anatomy of the Human Body, printed at London in the year 1730; these being, besides the Appendix, the only other original docu¬ ments which I have met with in our language, «relative to the share which Mr. Cheselden had ip^ improving the lateral operation. Such of you. Gentlemen, as may be desirous to obtain a more minute knowledge of the parts concerned in this operation, than is contained