Cases of lithotrity, or examples of the stone cured without incision : followed by a description of the first symptoms of the disease / by Baron Heurteloup.

  • Heurteloup, M. le Baron (Charles Louis Stanislaus), 1793-1864.
Date:
1831
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Cases of lithotrity, or examples of the stone cured without incision : followed by a description of the first symptoms of the disease / by Baron Heurteloup. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    18/68 (page 8)
    patient was relieved of his stone, and recovered completely after two operations. The only circumstance worthy of remark is that the stone, when once forced into the cervix of the hladder by the urine, was retained there for a con- siderable length of time; this threw the patient into a continual state of spasm, and produced a 1. By employing the forceps the surgeon is in danger of lacer- ating the urethra, and of producing urinary fistulas. 2. It often requires that an incision should be made, in order to extract a calculus, which from its size sometimes remains entangled in the urethra ; and if this takes place near the neck of the bladder it differs little from the operation of Lithotomy. 3. When it has been found necessary to make an incision in the perineum, which in itself is not unaccompanied with danger, and that there still remain several calculi in the bladder, which is often the case, this operation is of little avail, for the portion of the urethra which was cut into in order to extract the stone, must necessarily contract more or less, and thus present an obstacle to the introduction of the instmments of Lithotrity; the patient will consequently be compelled to have his bladder cut open in order to have the stone extracted, which remains in its interior. Thus we see that the application of the curved forceps is attended with danger, and that it can only be completely successful when the calculus is very small, and even then, notwithstanding the skill of the operators, it is seldom seized and extracted ; searching for the stone always fatigues the patient much more than several operations with an instrument of Lithotrity. Another disadvantage is that the surgeon can never foresee whether or no it will be necessary to make an incision in the perineum, not knowing whether he has grasped a stone with projecting angles, or one too large to pass through the urethra.