View Article PDF

By Drs P. W. Hislop, M.D. (Geraldine) and P. Clennell Fenwick, F.R.C.S.E. (Christchurch). Published in a NZMJ 1910 issue.

In April, 1908 I performed caesarian on this patient and tied and divided the fallopian tube on each side. The patient made an uninterrupted recovery and left the home three weeks after operation in excellent health. She returned to consult me at the end of 1909 believing that she was again pregnant.

On examination the fact was established without doubt and caesarian section was recommended as she laid undergone the operation so well before. On July 2nd, 1910, she was admitted into the nursing home and a bougie was passed into the uterus. The following morning slight labour pains had commenced, and Dr. Mill gave chloroform and we opened the abdomen through the old scar. A firm adhesion between the anterior abdominal wall and the uterus was found and divided. Several wide adhesions between the omentum and uterus required careful attention and then a search was made for the old cicatrix in the wall of the uterus. We could not discover this so the uterus was opened and the child extracted.

The placenta was peeled off easily and the uterine wound closed with fourteen silk sutures. After an injection of ernutin the uterus contracted well and the tubes were then examined to discover the reason for the recurrence of pregnancy. Apparently they were both normal. It was not possible to detect the scar where they were divided at the first operation. To make things certain, both ovaries were removed.

The child, a female, weighed 6¼ pounds. It took the breast the same evening. There was no sickness after operation but the patient complained of very severe after-pains fo which morphia was required. A rise of temperature occurred on the 6th day due apparently to one small stitch abscess.

The interest of this case was the recurrence of pregnancy after the fallopian tubes had been carefully divided. My colleague was sceptical and suggested that I had not divided the tubes on both sides but I recalled to his memory an incident which proved that we had taken especial care to perform this measure properly as I remembered that we had each divided one tube.

Summary

Abstract

Aim

Method

Results

Conclusion

Author Information

Acknowledgements

Correspondence

Correspondence Email

Competing Interests

For the PDF of this article,
contact nzmj@nzma.org.nz

View Article PDF

By Drs P. W. Hislop, M.D. (Geraldine) and P. Clennell Fenwick, F.R.C.S.E. (Christchurch). Published in a NZMJ 1910 issue.

In April, 1908 I performed caesarian on this patient and tied and divided the fallopian tube on each side. The patient made an uninterrupted recovery and left the home three weeks after operation in excellent health. She returned to consult me at the end of 1909 believing that she was again pregnant.

On examination the fact was established without doubt and caesarian section was recommended as she laid undergone the operation so well before. On July 2nd, 1910, she was admitted into the nursing home and a bougie was passed into the uterus. The following morning slight labour pains had commenced, and Dr. Mill gave chloroform and we opened the abdomen through the old scar. A firm adhesion between the anterior abdominal wall and the uterus was found and divided. Several wide adhesions between the omentum and uterus required careful attention and then a search was made for the old cicatrix in the wall of the uterus. We could not discover this so the uterus was opened and the child extracted.

The placenta was peeled off easily and the uterine wound closed with fourteen silk sutures. After an injection of ernutin the uterus contracted well and the tubes were then examined to discover the reason for the recurrence of pregnancy. Apparently they were both normal. It was not possible to detect the scar where they were divided at the first operation. To make things certain, both ovaries were removed.

The child, a female, weighed 6¼ pounds. It took the breast the same evening. There was no sickness after operation but the patient complained of very severe after-pains fo which morphia was required. A rise of temperature occurred on the 6th day due apparently to one small stitch abscess.

The interest of this case was the recurrence of pregnancy after the fallopian tubes had been carefully divided. My colleague was sceptical and suggested that I had not divided the tubes on both sides but I recalled to his memory an incident which proved that we had taken especial care to perform this measure properly as I remembered that we had each divided one tube.

Summary

Abstract

Aim

Method

Results

Conclusion

Author Information

Acknowledgements

Correspondence

Correspondence Email

Competing Interests

For the PDF of this article,
contact nzmj@nzma.org.nz

View Article PDF

By Drs P. W. Hislop, M.D. (Geraldine) and P. Clennell Fenwick, F.R.C.S.E. (Christchurch). Published in a NZMJ 1910 issue.

In April, 1908 I performed caesarian on this patient and tied and divided the fallopian tube on each side. The patient made an uninterrupted recovery and left the home three weeks after operation in excellent health. She returned to consult me at the end of 1909 believing that she was again pregnant.

On examination the fact was established without doubt and caesarian section was recommended as she laid undergone the operation so well before. On July 2nd, 1910, she was admitted into the nursing home and a bougie was passed into the uterus. The following morning slight labour pains had commenced, and Dr. Mill gave chloroform and we opened the abdomen through the old scar. A firm adhesion between the anterior abdominal wall and the uterus was found and divided. Several wide adhesions between the omentum and uterus required careful attention and then a search was made for the old cicatrix in the wall of the uterus. We could not discover this so the uterus was opened and the child extracted.

The placenta was peeled off easily and the uterine wound closed with fourteen silk sutures. After an injection of ernutin the uterus contracted well and the tubes were then examined to discover the reason for the recurrence of pregnancy. Apparently they were both normal. It was not possible to detect the scar where they were divided at the first operation. To make things certain, both ovaries were removed.

The child, a female, weighed 6¼ pounds. It took the breast the same evening. There was no sickness after operation but the patient complained of very severe after-pains fo which morphia was required. A rise of temperature occurred on the 6th day due apparently to one small stitch abscess.

The interest of this case was the recurrence of pregnancy after the fallopian tubes had been carefully divided. My colleague was sceptical and suggested that I had not divided the tubes on both sides but I recalled to his memory an incident which proved that we had taken especial care to perform this measure properly as I remembered that we had each divided one tube.

Summary

Abstract

Aim

Method

Results

Conclusion

Author Information

Acknowledgements

Correspondence

Correspondence Email

Competing Interests

Contact diana@nzma.org.nz
for the PDF of this article

Subscriber Content

The full contents of this pages only available to subscribers.

LOGINSUBSCRIBE