Joseph Bell

Historical.—Beyond a passage ascribed to Hippocrates, but of very doubtful authenticity, and slight allusions in the works of Celsus and Paulus Ægineta, the ancients give us no information whatever on this subject.

Hippocrates says,—"Complete resections of bones in the neighbourhood of joints both in the foot, in the hand, in the tibia up to the malleoli, and in the ulna at its junction with the hand, and in many other places, are safe operations, if that fatal syncope does not at once occur, and continued fever does not attack the patient on the fourth day."

Celsus and Ægineta both advise the removal of protruding ends of bone in compound dislocations, but without giving any cases.

From the days of these classic fathers of Surgery, we have hardly an indication of any attention whatever having been paid to their hints till quite within the last hundred years.

The first distinct publication on the subject was by Henry Park of Liverpool, in a letter to Percival Pott in 1783. He proposed the removal of the articulating extremities of diseased elbow and knee-joints to obtain cures. He says he was led to this by its having been the invariable custom, for more than thirty years, at the Liverpool Infirmary, to take off the protruded extremities of bones in cases of compound dislocation.

The chief credit, however, in practically elevating excisions into the catalogue of recognised surgical operations, is owing, British surgeons most cordially own, to two provincial surgeons of France, the Moreaus (father and son) of Bar-sur-Ornain. They took the lead in the most marked manner, having excised the shoulder in 1786, the wrist and elbow in 1794, knee and ankle in 1792, and had followed this up so well that, in 1803, the younger Moreau could boast, "the town has become in some sort the refuge of the unfortunate afflicted with carious joints, after they have tried all the means usually recommended by professional men, or have had recourse to empirical nostrums, or when amputation seemed to them the last resource."

Moreau's papers and cases, which, between 1786 and 1789, he frequently read to the French Academy, were, some violently opposed, others utterly neglected by his compatriots, and many of them lost and buried in the unpublished papers of that body.

And though diseased joints did not decline in frequency, and though injured ones were extremely numerous during these long years of European war, excisions were but rarely performed.

With the exception of the removal of head of humerus after gunshot injury, hardly any British, and but very few French, limbs were saved by excision taking the place of amputation.

The limbs that were saved by Percy by excision of the head of the humerus really owe their recovery and safety to the elder Moreau; for an operation of his, at which he was assisted by that distinguished military surgeon, gave the latter the hint, which he followed so successfully, that by 1795 he had performed it nineteen times, and had indoctrinated Sabatier, Larrey, and others, and elevated it into a recognised operation of military surgery.

So far, however, as the application of the great improvement of the Moreaus to disease went, the French surgeons have little reason to boast, for it is to English surgery, and especially to one Edinburgh surgeon, that this class of operations owes nearly all its improvement in methods and frequency of performance.

For though (as we shall see under the special heads) here and there one or two cases were performed, it was not till the publication of Mr. Syme's monograph on the excision of diseased joints, in 1831, that the importance and value of the discovery were fairly brought before the profession; and the conservative surgery, of which excision as preferred to amputation is the great type, must ever be associated with British surgeons—Syme, Fergusson, Mackenzie, Jones of Jersey, Butcher of Dublin.

On the Continent—Langenbeck, Stromeyer, Heyfelder, Ollier, Esmarch of Kiel, specially in the surgical history of the first Schleswig-Holstein war, have followed up the example set them here.

Before proceeding to describe the operations on the various joints, one or two questions may be briefly asked and answered by way of introduction.

In what cases, or sorts of cases, are excisions suitable?

1. In cases of compound injury or dislocation of a large joint, as used by Filkin, Park, White, and other English surgeons long ago. In hospital practice, or in private, where there is every advantage of rest, food, and appliances, such operations will frequently be found suitable where the joint is alone or chiefly the seat of injury, and where the general health seems fit to bear a prolonged suppuration. But long and sad experience has shown that, as a general rule in military practice, with the difficulties of transport, the generally bad sanitary state of the hospitals, and the want often of adequate dressings and attention, excisions are much more fatal than amputations, and, except in elbow and shoulder (q.v.), should be as a general rule avoided.

2. Excision for deformity (generally speaking for bony anchylosis) will require for decision the consideration of many points, i.e. the joint affected, the nature of the disease or injury which has caused the anchylosis: and in each case—(1.) the state of health of the patient; and (2.) his occupation, and the consequent position of limb which would suit him best. As a general rule, I believe, experience will prove that such operations on the lower extremity are almost absolutely inadmissible, except under very special urgency on the part of the patient, and a very high condition of health—while in the upper, the elbow-joint is the only one which you will ever be likely to be asked to remedy, or should comply with the request if asked; as the shoulder, even if anchylosed, will (1.) from its own weight generally become so in the most favourable position; and (2.) from the extreme mobility which the scapula can acquire, its anchylosis will not be so much felt.

The elbow, however, from the frequency of fractures of the condyles of the humerus obliquely into the joint, and from the manner in which these are so often neither recognised nor properly treated, very often becomes anchylosed in the most awkward possible position, i.e. nearly straight; and operations undertaken for such deformities are in general both quite safe and very satisfactory. Mr. Syme had one case (resulting from a fall, causing a double fracture), in which both arms were thus firmly anchylosed in such a position that the sufferer could absolutely perform none of the commonest duties of life without assistance. Excision of both joints cured him.

The author excised with success for disease the elbow-joint of a patient whose other arm had required the same operation.

The occupation of the patient must always be taken into consideration when settling the position of an anchylosis, or the necessity or advantage of a resection.

Thus, Bryant[52] tells of a painter who wished his arm to be fixed in a straight position, and of a turner whose knee at his own request was permitted to stiffen at a right angle, as that position allowed him to turn his wheel.

3. Excision for Disease of the Joint.—In our cold climate, so cursed by scrofula, and specially among the children of the labouring poor, such joint diseases are very prevalent, and whether the disease commences in the synovial membrane, the articular cartilages, or the heads of the bones, it frequently so disorganises the joint as to make it a question whether something must not be done to preserve the very life of the patient.

The difficulty of diagnosing the cases in which excisions are suitable or necessary is often very great; and we must balance its performance—(1.) against the possibly good results of an expectant treatment; (2.) against amputation of the limb.

(1.) Against expectant Treatment.—The patient has youth on his side, could we give him fresh sea air, good diet, cod oil, etc., we might very likely obtain anchylosis; true, but he may die while trying for this anchylosis, and also this anchylosis, when got, may so lame or deform him that resection may still be required.

These points must all be considered, but as a general rule, I would say that such attempts at preservation of the limb are much more justifiable, and longer justifiable in the hip and knee-joints than in the elbow or shoulder; for the results in the lower limb will probably be as good, if the patient survive, if not better, than those obtained by excision, while the danger of the operation is greater; while in the upper limb, the danger to life in operating is less than that of leaving the limb on, and the results obtained by a successful operation, with well-managed after treatment, are far more satisfactory than the best possible anchylosis.

Another point bearing on this, of very great importance: In children, the most frequent subjects of such disease, excision of the lower limb may, by removing the epiphyses, cause to a very considerable degree disparity in their length, thus rendering them nearly useless, while in the upper such disparity is neither so extensive nor so injurious to the usefulness of the limb, which is not required for purposes of progression.

In the hip-joint especially, all the resources of the art should be tried in the expectant treatment, for amputation at the hip-joint is hardly ever admissible for disease of the joint, while excision has anything but satisfactory statistics.

(2.) Against Amputation.—Many questions must be considered, chiefly under the heads of the separate joints:—

1. As to the difficulties and dangers of the operations contrasted.

Such as the following:—

Excisions give the surgeon more trouble, require more manual dexterity; take longer to perform; are very painful operations. Not valid objections in these days of chloroform and operative surgery on the dead body.

Excisions have the special peculiarity and danger of dealing chiefly with cancellated bone, broadened out, open, with numerous patulous canals for large veins, tending on any irritation or inflammation to set up a diffuse suppuration, and to culminate in phlebitis, myelitis, and other pyÆmic conditions.

Excisions are performed through degenerate or disorganised, amputations through healthy, tissue.

Excisions require extreme care and absolute rest (i.e. in lower limb) for many weeks and months after the operation.

But, on the other hand,—

Amputations remove a portion of the body; excisions a much less one. Amputations are always necessarily nearer the centre than the corresponding excisions, and statistics show that the fatality of operations increases in exact proportion as they approach the centre.

A successful excision, especially in arm, saves a limb nearly perfect; an amputation at best is only the stump for a wooden one.

On the whole, there is actually very little difference in the mortality of excisions and amputations.

2. As to the results of the operation on the usefulness of the limb, depending on joint involved, age of patient, and amount of bone removed:—

A. Joint involved.—These must be noticed separately, but one thing is absolutely certain, that a much higher standard of usefulness, both in equality of length, amount of anchylosis, and position, is needed in the lower than in the upper limb. For a leg hanging like a flail, or shortened by some inches, is not so good for purposes of locomotion as a wooden leg is, while an arm, even though powerless at the elbow, and perhaps much shortened, can be so strengthened and supported by slings and bandages as to give a most useful hand, the complex movements and uses of the fingers of which no mechanism can at all imitate.

B. Age of Patient.—It must be remembered that excision in a child removes the epiphyses by which in great measure the growth of the bone is to be managed, and the stunted limb, especially in the leg, will eventually be of little advantage, though after the operation it looked excellently well, if a few years later it be found to be seven or eight inches shorter than its neighbour.

C. Amount of Bone removed.—From an erroneous view of the pathological changes in the bone affected, far too much was removed by many of the earlier operators, especially Moreau and Crampton.

The reason that this is often still the case, is well seen in many preparations. The bones are thickened to a considerable distance, and covered with irregular warty excrescences. These, which used to be considered evidences of disease, are only compact new healthy bone, thrown out like the callus of a fracture in consequence of the irritation.

In a word, what we require to remove is the following:—

1. All the cartilage, dead or alive, healthy or diseased.

2. Only the bone involving the articular extremities, in thin slices, or with the occasional use of the gouge, till a healthy bleeding surface is obtained.

3. The synovial membrane, however gelatinous or thickened looking, really requires very little care or notice; it will disappear of itself, partly by sloughing, partly by absorption during the profuse suppuration.[53]

Excision of the Shoulder-Joint.—Before considering the method of operating, a word or two is required on the subject of how much is to be removed, and in what cases the operation should be performed. The shoulder and hip joints are the only ones in which partial excision is ever admissible, indeed, in the shoulder excision of the head of the humerus only is in many cases found to be all that is necessary, while in all it is much less dangerous to life than when the glenoid cavity also requires to be interfered with.

It is rarely necessary to remove more of the bone than merely its articular extremity (when performed for disease of the joint), and if possible this should be done inside the capsule, i.e. through an incision in the capsule, but without involving its attachment to the neck of the bone. When the glenoid is also diseased, mere gouging or scraping the cartilaginous surface will not suffice, but the neck must be thoroughly exposed, so that the whole cup of the glenoid may be removed by powerful forceps.

Cases suitable for Excision.—Cases of chronic disease of the head of the humerus (generally tubercular), or of chronic ulceration of the cartilages which has resisted counter-irritation. Cases of gunshot injury of the joint, or of compound dislocation, or fracture involving the joint. Cases of limited tumours affecting merely the head and upper third of the bone, and non-malignant in character. Anchylosis very rarely requires and would not be much benefited by such an operation.

Operation.—Though perhaps not the easiest, the following method is the one followed by the best results. It is suited especially for cases of caries or other disease of the joint, where the head of the humerus is either alone or chiefly affected:—

A single straight incision (Plate I. fig. a.) is made from a point just external to the coracoid process downwards along the humerus for at least three inches. It corresponds almost exactly to the bicipital groove, and has the advantage of avoiding the great vessels and nerves. The long head of the biceps may then be raised from its groove, and drawn to a side so as to be preserved. This is deemed of importance by Langenbeck and others. Mr. Syme, however, did not attach much value to its preservation, as it is often diseased. The capsule, which is often much altered, perhaps in part destroyed, is then opened, and the tendons of the muscles which rotate the head of the humerus divided in succession, while the elbow is rotated first inwards and then outwards by an assistant so as to put them on the stretch. The arm being then forced backwards, the head of the bone can be protruded through the wound, and sawn off at the necessary distance down the shaft. The glenoid must then be carefully examined, and any diseased bone removed by the cutting pliers. One or two small branches supplying the anterior fold of the axilla are the only vessels divided, and may not even require ligature, unless, indeed, from necrosis, or to remove a tumour, a larger portion of the humerus than usual has been removed. If the limit of capsule has been infringed on below, the circumflex vessels may probably be cut, in which case the bleeding may be considerable.

N.B.—In cases of fracture of neck of humerus, or of compound gunshot injury, or where the head has been separated by necrosis from the shaft, or where, as has happened to Stanley and others, the bone broke in the endeavour to tilt the head out, the surgeon will require to seize the detached head with strong forceps, and dissect it out with care.

Other methods of Resection.—When from great thickening and induration of the soft parts, enlargement of the head of the bone, or other reason, the straight incision may be deemed insufficient for the purpose (and we may remark that there are comparatively few cases in which it is insufficient), access may be obtained to the joint by raising a flap from the deltoid (Plate III. fig. a). Its shape—V-shaped, semilunar, or ovoid—is not of much consequence, for there are no great nerves or vessels to wound on the outside of the joint, and the surgeon should be guided, as in all other operations on the joint, very much by the position of any pre-existing sinuses. This flap being raised upwards towards its base, very free access is gained to the joint.

In these cases, fortunately comparatively rare, in which there is reason to believe that the glenoid is chiefly involved in disease, and yet that the disease can be removed without amputation, access will be gained most easily by an incision (Plate III. fig. b.) on the posterior surface of the joint, corresponding in size and direction to the linear incision in front. This gives a much easier mode of access to the glenoid. I have seen this practised in one very remarkable case by Mr. Syme, in which the glenoid cavity and neck of the scapula were extensively diseased, while the head of the bone was quite sound.

After-treatment is exceedingly simple; for the first day or two the shoulder is to be supported on a pillow with a simple pad in the axilla, if there is any tendency for the arm to drag inwards; after this the patient should be encouraged to sit up and move about with his arm in a sling, the elbow hanging freely down.

Results.—Hodge records ninety-six cases in which this excision was performed for gunshot injury, of which twenty-five proved fatal, and fifty for disease, of which only eight died,—results which are more encouraging than those of amputation at the shoulder-joint for disease; though for injury the mortality is much greater than Larrey's famous Statistics of Amputation, q.v. p. 65.

Spence had thirty-three cases, with three deaths. He generally made a counter-opening behind to get rid of discharges, and inserted a drainage-tube.

Gurlt's statistics of excision for gunshot injury give of 1661 cases 1067 recoveries, 27 doubtful results, and 567 deaths, the mortality being 34.70 per cent.

Excision of the Elbow-Joint—In what cases should it be performed?—1. For disease of the elbow-joint which has resisted ordinary remedies, and is wearing down the patient's strength, including caries, ulceration of cartilages, and gelatinous synovial degeneration.

2. For wounds of the elbow penetrating the joint, the prognosis both as to the patient's life and the usefulness of his arm is much better after excision than after endeavours to save the joint without excision. This is especially the case when the wound of the joint is small and punctured, but if the case is seen early and treated by free drainage, with antiseptic precautions, excision may not be required.

3. For anchylosis, in cases where after disease or injury the limb has stiffened in a bad position, especially when, with a straight elbow, the hand is rendered almost perfectly useless.

How much should be removed?—In the elbow-joint, more than any other joint in the body, complete excision is absolutely necessary; any portion of the articular surface being left proves a source of unfavourable result.

The surgeon is apt to err rather in removing too little than too much. For the removal of too little bone is, on the one hand, apt to result in long-standing sinuses, on the other, to induce anchylosis.

In making the section of the bones, the saw ought to be applied to the humerus transversely just at the commencement of its condyloid projections, and to the radius and ulna, at least at a level with the base of the coronoid process of the ulna.

But while removing enough, we must not be led into the error of removing too much. If this is done, as was done by Sir Philip Crampton in his first case, and as happens occasionally of necessity in cases of excision for gunshot wounds or other accidents, much of the power of the arm is lost as a consequence of the shortening and excessive mobility.

A mistaken pathology sometimes deceives in the examination of the state of the bones, and causes an unnecessary amount to be removed. For in many cases of disease the bones in the neighbourhood of the joint are stimulated to an excessive amount of what is in reality Nature's effort at repair, and while the cartilaginous surfaces are denuded of cartilage, soft, and porous, the bones close by are roughened with a stalactitic-looking growth, projecting in knobs and angles. Now, if this be mistaken for disease and removed, too much will almost certainly be taken away, and the result will be unsatisfactory.

Much less care need be taken exactly to discriminate and remove the diseased soft parts; indeed they may be left alone; the synovial membrane in a state of gelatinous degeneration sometimes presents a very formidable appearance of disease, but if the bones be properly removed, all this swelling will soon go down, and a healthy condition of parts succeed, without any clipping or paring on the surgeon's part.

Operation.—The back of the joint is of course chosen for the seat of the incisions, both because the bones are there just under the skin, and because the great vessels and nerves lie in front of the joint. The form and number of the incisions vary considerably, and ought to vary according to the nature of the case and the amount of disease or injury.

Though it is now little used, for historical interest I retain the description of the H-shaped incision (Plate III. fig. c.), used first by Moreau, and re-introduced by Mr. Syme, and used by him for most of his very numerous cases.

The posterior surface of the joint being exposed, the surgeon, with a strong straight bistoury, makes a transverse incision into the joint just above the olecranon. It should begin just far enough outside of the internal condyle to avoid the ulnar nerve, which the surgeon should protect by the forefinger of his left hand, and should extend transversely across to the outer condyle. From each end of this incision the surgeon should next make at a right angle two incisions, each about one inch and a half or two inches long, right down to the bone, thus marking out two quadrilateral flaps. These should next be raised from the bones, up and down, as much of the soft parts being retained in them as possible, so as to add to their thickness. The olecranon is thus exposed, and should be removed by saw or pliers by cutting into the greater sigmoid notch; the lateral ligaments must then be cut, if they are not already destroyed by the disease, and the humerus protruded, a proper amount of which is then to be sawn off in a transverse direction. The head of the radius is then easily removed by the bone-pliers, and the ulna also protruded, the attachment of the brachialis anticus to the coronoid process divided, and the bone sawn across just at the base of that process.

Few vessels, if any, will require ligature, and the arm being bent to nearly a right angle, the transverse incision must be very carefully sewed up with silver sutures closely set and deeply placed, as much of the future success of the joint depends on the completeness of the primary union of this incision. The external incision may also be accurately adjusted, the internal one not so completely, to allow free vent for the discharge, which is aided by the ligatures, if any are required, being brought out at its lower angle. A figure-of-8 bandage should be applied over pads of dry lint, and the limb laid on a pillow. No splint is necessary; in a few days the patient will be able to rise and walk about.

Passive motion should be begun so soon as the first inflammatory symptoms have passed off.

If properly performed, in a tolerably healthy subject, the surgeon should not be satisfied with any results short of almost perfect restoration of motion in the joint. Flexion and extension to their full extent, with a very considerable amount of pronation and supination, are to be expected, with proper care, in a patient of average intelligence.

Numerous cases are now on record where almost perfect performance of all the duties of life was retained after excision of the elbow-joint.[54]

In most cases it is possible, and in nearly all advisable, to excise the joint by means of a less complicated incision. Thus one long vertical incision at the posterior surface, with its centre about midway between the ulna and the external condyle, with a transverse incision at right angles to it, and reaching almost to the internal condyle, has been often practised with a very good result.

By nearly universal consent this single straight incision is now used, and when it is properly dressed and drained gives admirable results.

A single vertical incision (Plate III. fig. d.) without any transverse one, as long ago recommended by Chassaignac, is, in most cases, quite sufficient to give access. It is most suitable in cases of anchylosis, where there is little deposit of new bone, or in cases of disease of the joint, accompanied with little swelling or thickening of surrounding tissues. It has the advantage of avoiding the cicatrix of a transverse incision, which doubtless may, if at all a broad one, somewhat interfere with the future flexion of the limb, but, on the other hand, unless care is taken, it does not give such free egress for the discharge, and when there is much delay in healing, the vertical incision may leave a cicatrix nearly as troublesome as the other.

The following modification, suggested and practised by the late Mr. Maunder, seems to be a step in the right direction when it is practicable. "After a longitudinal incision crossing the point of the olecranon I next let the knife sink into the triceps muscle, and divide it longitudinally into two portions, the inner one of which is the more firmly attached to the ulna, while the outer portion is continuous with the anconeus muscle, and sends some tendinous fibres to blend with the fascia of the fore-arm. It is these latter fibres that are to be scrupulously preserved.

"Two points have to be remembered: first, the ulnar nerve, often unseen, must be lifted from its bed, and carried over the internal condyle to a safe place, and then the outer portion of the triceps muscle with its tendinous prolongation, the fascia of the fore-arm and the anconeus muscle must be dissected up, as it were, in one piece, sufficiently to allow of its being temporarily carried out over the external condyle of the humerus."[55]

This method aids in retaining the power of active extension of the elbow-joint.

Excision for osseous anchylosis in the extended position of the joint may be sometimes rendered very difficult by the density, firmness, and extensive hypertrophy of the bones, which become fused into one solid mass. Any attempt to isolate the bones, and remove the anchylosed joint entire, by incising the bones as if for disease, will both prove very laborious, and also probably end in doing some damage to the vessels and nerves in front. But by sawing through the anchylosis about its centre, as was pointed out many years ago by Mr. Syme, the fore-arm may be flexed, and the bones as easily displayed, cleaned, and removed, as in the operation for disease. In this operation, as there is less thickening of the skin and subjacent textures, and in consequence more risk of deficiency and even sloughing of the flaps made by the H-shaped incision, a single straight incision will serve the purpose admirably.

Partial incisions of the elbow-joint are, as a rule, less successful and more dangerous to life than complete ones, except in cases of excision for anchylosis. Even in gunshot wounds, where the bones were previously healthy, and where uninjured portions might have been left with some hopes of success, this is the case.

The mortality from this operation is considerably less than that from amputation of the arm. Of a series of excisions for disease, injury, and anchylosis, 22.15 per cent. died, while out of a similar series of amputations of the arm the mortality was 33.4 per cent.[57] Our mortality of excision of the elbow here is certainly much less than the above. All of the cases, between thirty and forty, in which I have done it have recovered with but one exception, and Mr. Syme lost only one during the time I was his assistant.

Professor Spence lost only 16 in 189 cases, or 8.3 per cent.

Gurlt's statistics for gunshot injury give a mortality of over 24 per cent.

Out of 82 cases where the joint was excised for injury in the Schleswig-Holstein and Crimean campaigns, only 16 died; and out of 115 cases in which the joint was excised for disease, only 15 died.

The period after the injury at which the excision is performed seems to be important.

Excision of the Wrist.—Very various methods have been proposed and executed for the purpose of excising this joint. These vary much in difficulty and complexity, in proportion to the endeavours made to save the tendons from being cut.

The principles which must guide all attempts at operative interference with this joint are—

1. To remove all the diseased bone, including the cartilage-covered portions of the radius, ulna, and of the metacarpal bones, as little of these bones being removed as possible, beyond the cartilage-covered portions.

2. To disturb the tendons as little as possible, especially to avoid isolating them from the cellular sheath.

3. To commence passive motion of the fingers very soon after the operation.

It is rarely possible to remove the carpal bones as a whole, from the diseased condition which renders the operation necessary, and the digging out of the various bones piecemeal renders the operation very tedious, especially if the proximal ends of the metacarpal bones are involved and require to be removed, hence this operation was practically impossible till after the discovery of anÆsthesia.

In describing the operation elaborated and described by Professor Lister, the type of the various plans in which the tendons are saved is given, while a very few words descriptive of the incisions used by others who cut the tendons will suffice.

Lister's Operation of Excision of the Wrist-Joint.—Even an abridgment of Mr. Lister's account of his operation must necessarily be long, because the operation itself is so complicated and prolonged, and guided by such precise principles, as to render much abridgment almost impossible.

A tourniquet is put on, to prevent oozing, which would conceal the state of the bones; any adhesions of the tendons must be then broken down by free movement of all the joints.

The radial incision (Plate IV. fig. a.) is then made. It commences at the middle of the dorsal aspect of the radius, on a level with the styloid process, passes as if going towards the inner side of the metacarpo-phalangeal joint of the thumb, in a line parallel to the extensor secundi internodii, but turns off at an angle as it passes the radial border of the second metacarpal, and then longitudinally downwards for half the length of that bone. The extensor carpi radialis brevior tendon is divided in the incision. The soft parts at the radial side are to be carefully dissected up, and the tendon of the extensor carpi radialis longior divided at its insertion. The cut tendons, and the extensor secundi internodii tendon and the radial artery can thus be pushed outwards, enabling the trapezium to be separated from the carpus by cutting-pliers. The extensor tendons being relaxed by bending back the hand, the soft parts must be cleared from the carpus as far as possible towards the ulnar side.

The ulnar incision (Plate IV. fig. b.) extends from two inches above the end of the ulna, in a line between the bone and the flexor carpi ulnaris, straight down as far as the middle of the palmar aspect of the fifth metacarpal. The dorsal lip of this incision is then raised, and the tendon of the extensor carpi ulnaris cut at its insertion, and reflected up out of its groove in the ulna along with the skin. The extensor tendons are then raised from the carpus, and the dorsal and lateral ligaments of the wrist divided, the tendons still being left as far as possible undisturbed in their relation to the radius. In front the flexor tendons are cleared from the carpus, the pisiform bone separated from the others though not removed, and the hook of the unciform divided by pliers. The knife must not go further down than the base of the metacarpal bones, in case of dividing the deep palmar arch. The anterior ligament of the wrist being now divided, the carpus and metacarpus are to be separated by cutting-pliers, and the carpus extracted by strong sequestrum forceps. By forcible eversion of the hand, the ends of radius and ulna can be protruded at the ulnar incision; as little as possible should be removed, consistent with removing all the disease. The ulna should be cut obliquely, leaving the base of the styloid process, and removing all the cartilage-covered portion. A thin slice of the radius is then to be cut also with the saw, so thin as to remove only the bevelled ungrooved portion, and leaving the tendons as far as possible undisturbed in their grooves. The ulnar articular facet is to be snipped off with bone-pliers. If the bones are more deeply carious, the diseased parts must at all hazards be removed with pliers or gouge. The metacarpal bones must then be treated in precisely the same way, their ends sawn off and their articular facets snipped off with the bone-pliers longitudinally. The trapezium is then to be seized by forceps and carefully dissected out, the metacarpal bone of the thumb pared like the others, the articular surface of the pisiform removed, the rest of the bone being left if it is sound. The radial incision is stitched closely throughout, and also the ends of the ulnar incision, any ligature being brought out through the centre of the ulnar incision, which is kept open with a piece of lint, which also gives support to the extensor tendons.

The after-treatment is important, the principal specialities being—(1.) early and free movement of the fingers; (2.) secure fixing of the wrist to procure consolidation. (1.) By passive motion of the joints of the knuckles and fingers, commenced on the second day, and continued daily after the operation; (2.) By a splint supporting the fore-arm and hand, the fingers being held in a semiflexed position by a large pad of cork fastened firmly on to the splint and made to fit the palm; this prevents the splint from slipping up the arm, and by a turn of a bandage insures fixation of the wrist-joint. The anterior part of this splint below the fingers may be gradually shortened, allowing more and more passive motion of the fingers, but the patient must wear it for months, indeed, till he finds his wrist as strong without it as with it.

Among the various operations that have been devised, the following require notice:—Mr. Spence, Dr. Gillespie, Dr. Watson, and the author, use a single dorsal incision with excellent results, and find it quite easy to remove all the bones from it. Mr. Spence had sixteen cases without a death.

Excision of the Hip-Joint.—The question as to the propriety of performing this operation in any case is still debated by some surgeons, and the selection of suitable cases for the operation is greatly modified by the varying opinions of the different schools of surgery. Enough here to describe the method of operating, and the amount of the bone which is to be removed.

As in the shoulder-joint, the head of the femur is much more liable to disease, and, as a rule, much earlier attacked than is the acetabulum, but unfortunately the acetabulum does eventually become affected also in probably a much larger proportionate number of cases than the glenoid. Caries of the head, neck, and trochanters of the femur is a very common disease in this variable climate, and frequently connected with the strumous taint. After much suffering, abscesses form and discharge, giving considerable pain, and often end by carrying off the patient. As a result of the abscess and destruction of the ligaments, the head of the bone is apt to be displaced, and under some sudden muscular exertion or involuntary spasm, consecutive dislocation of the femur (generally on to the dorsum ilii) very often occurs.

In such a case the operation of excision of the head of the femur is by no means difficult, and not excessively dangerous, especially in young children.

Operation.—It is hardly necessary, or indeed possible, to lay down exact rules for the performance of this operation, in so far as the external incisions are concerned, for the sinuses which exist ought in general to be made use of.

When the surgeon has his choice, a straight incision (Plate II. fig. a.), parallel with the bone, extending from the top of the great trochanter downwards for about two inches, and also from the same point in a curved direction with the concavity forwards, upwards towards the position of the head of the bone (see diagram), will be found most convenient. The incisions should be carried boldly down to the bone, which will often be felt exposed and bathed in pus, any remains of the ligamentous structures must be cautiously divided with a probe-pointed bistoury, and then by bringing the knee of the affected side forcibly across the opposite thigh, with the toes everted, the head of the bone is forced out of the wound. The head, neck, and great trochanter should be fully exposed, and the saw applied transversely below the level of the trochanter, so as to remove it entire. If this is not done, it prevents discharge, protrudes at the wound, and besides this it is almost invariably diseased along with the head. Chain saws are quite unnecessary, it being in most cases easy to apply an ordinary one to the bone, if it is properly everted.

Great care in the after-treatment is required to prevent undue shortening of the limb, or in the event of a cure to secure the most favourable position for the anchylosis. The femur occasionally tends to protrude at the wound, and hence may require to be counter-extended by splints. If required at all, the splint should be made with an iron elbow opposite the wound to admit of its being easily dressed. In most cases counter-extension may be best managed by a weight and pulley.

Various forms of hammock swings to support the whole body, and slings of leather or canvas to support the limb only, have been found to aid recovery, and render the patient much more comfortable.

When the acetabulum is also diseased the prognosis is much more unfavourable than when it is sound.

The experiments of Heine and JÄger on the dead body, and operations by Hancock, Erichsen, and Holmes, on patients, have shown that in cases of extensive disease of the acetabulum it is quite possible by a prolonged and careful dissection to remove it all without injury of the pelvic viscera.

The details of incisions for such an operation need scarcely be given, as they must vary in each case with the amount of bone diseased, and the position of the already existing sinuses. The amount of bone that may be removed varies much. Erichsen in one case excised "the upper end of the femur, the acetabulum, the rami of the pubis, and of the ischium, a portion of the tuber ischii, and part of the dorsum ilii."[61]

A less formidable proceeding may be useful in cases where the acetabulum is diseased, but not deeply. The moderate use of an ordinary gouge may succeed in removing the diseased bone.

Experience and the cold evidence of statistics prove, however, that the prognosis in any case is modified very much for the worse by the presence of any disease of the acetabulum, more than one-half of the cases proving fatal in which it is diseased, whether attempts to remove the disease of the acetabulum be made or not, and that those cases do best in which the head of the femur has been displaced, and lies outside the joint almost like a loose sequestrum among the soft parts.

The results of excision of the hip have as yet been very discouraging, the mortality of the whole series of published cases being, according to Dr. Hodge's careful table, very little under 1 in every 2 cases, viz., 1 in 2-5/53. Later statistics are however more favourable.

Like all other excisions, the mortality increases very much with the patient's age.

Thus of 103 completed cases in which the age is given, 53 recovered and 50 died, but dividing the cases at the end of the sixteenth year, we find that of the children below this age 43 recovered and 29 died, a mortality of 40.2 per cent.; of the adults, 10 recovered, and 21 died, or a mortality of 67.6 per cent.

If we remember the marvellous power of recovery from joint diseases we find in childhood, under the influence of good diet, cod-liver oil, and fresh air, we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that such results and such a mortality are by no means encouraging.

From an extensive experience in a special hospital for hip-disease, where fresh air, abundant nourishment, and very excellent nursing are provided, the author is learning more and more to trust to the power of nature in the cure of even very advanced cases of hip-disease in children, and he believes that operation is rarely necessary, or even warrantable, except for the removal of sequestra.

Results in successful cases.—Of fifty-two in Hodge's table, thirty-one had useful limbs, six indifferent, three decidedly useless, four died within three years, and of the remaining eight no details are given.

The shortening is always considerable, a high-heeled shoe being required in most cases; a stick is indispensable; in many, crutches are necessary.

Excision of Knee-Joint.—Removal of Bone.—In every case the excision of the joint ought to be complete. Some attempts have been made to save one or other of the articular surfaces, but they have proved failures. The patella has frequently been left when it was not diseased, as is often the case, but the results have not been such as to recommend such a practice.

Direction of Section of the Bones.—The bones should be cut transversely, and, as far as possible, be in accurate and complete apposition. A slight bevelling at the expense of the posterior margin will produce an anchylosis of the limb in a very slightly flexed position, which is found to aid the patient in walking.

It has been proposed by some[64] to cut both bones obliquely, so as to obviate the difficulty of making the transverse surfaces parallel. This involves a still greater practical difficulty in keeping these oblique surfaces in position during the after-treatment.

This plan might possibly be valuable in cases where the disease was limited to one or other edge of the bone.

Among the various incisions recommended, the best seems to be the Semilunar Incision.

Operation.—The limb being held in an extended position, a single semilunar incision (Plate I. fig. b.) is made, entering the joint at once, and dividing the ligamentum patellÆ. It should extend from the inner side of the inner condyle of the femur to a corresponding point over the outer one, passing in front of the joint midway between the lower edge of the patella and tuberosity of the tibia. The flap is then dissected back, the ligaments divided, when by extreme flexion of the limb the articular surface of the tibia and femur are thoroughly exposed. The crucial ligaments must then be divided cautiously, and the articular portion of the femur cleaned anteriorly by the knife, posteriorly by the operator's finger, so far as possible to avoid injury of the artery. The whole articular surface of the femur must then be removed by a transverse cut with the saw as exactly as possible at a right angle with the axis of the bone. The amount of the femur which will require removal will in the adult vary from an inch to an inch and a half or even more. It must involve all the bone normally covered by cartilage; and this being removed, if the section shows evidence of disease, slice after slice may require removal till a healthy surface is obtained. Occasionally, if the diseased portion appears limited, though deep, the application of a gouge may succeed in removing disease without involving too great shortening of the limb. Specially in children, it is of great importance to avoid removing the whole epiphysis. The tibia must then be exposed in a similar manner, and a thin slice removed; if the bone be tolerably healthy, even less than half an inch will prove quite sufficient.

This method has an immense advantage in that it provides an excellent anterior flap for the amputation, which may be required in cases where the disease of bone is found too extensive to admit of the excision being practised.

This method, with slight deviations, is substantially that of Richard Mackenzie of Edinburgh, Wood of New York, Jones of Jersey.

HÆmorrhage must then be stopped, and that as thoroughly as possible, by torsion, cold, and pressure, and the flap brought accurately together with sutures.

In some rare cases, it may be found necessary to divide the hamstring tendons to rectify spastic contraction of the muscles; but this can generally be done quite well from the original wound.

Holt makes a dependent opening in the popliteal space for drainage. This is unnecessary if the incisions are made sufficiently far back, and if the wound is properly drained. It is unsafe, as approaching so close to the artery and veins. If much bagging takes place, the use of a drainage-tube will prove quite sufficient.

After-treatment.—Wire splints lined with leather and provided with a foot-piece; special box-splints with moveable sides, as Butcher's;[65] plaster-of-Paris moulds are used by Dr. P.H. Watson[66] of Edinburgh and others; this last form of dressing is the best, and allows the limb to be suspended from a Salter's swing.

H-shaped incision.—The internal incision should commence at a point about two inches below the articular surface of the tibia, and in a line with its inner edge; it should then be carried up along the femur in a direction parallel to the axis of the extended limb, so as to pass in front of the saphena vein, and thus avoid it, for a distance of five inches. The external incision, commencing just below the head of the fibula, must be carried upwards parallel to the preceding for the same distance. Both incisions must be made by a heavy scalpel with a firm hand, so as to divide all the tissues down to the bone. The vertical incisions are then united by a transverse one passing across just below the lower angle of the patella. The flaps thus formed must then be dissected up and down, and the internal and external lateral ligaments divided, thus thoroughly opening the joint and exposing the crucial ligaments. These must be divided carefully, remembering the position of the artery. The bones are then to be cleared and divided, as in the operation already described. This is the method of Moreau and Butcher.[67]

Patella and Ligamentum PatellÆ retained.—"A longitudinal incision, full four inches in extent, was made on each side of the knee-joint, midway between the vasti and flexors of the leg; these two cuts were down to the bones, they were connected by a transverse one just over the prominence of the tubercle of the tibia, care being taken to avoid cutting by this incision the ligamentum patellÆ; the flap thus defined was reflected upwards, the patella and the ligament were then freed and drawn over the internal condyle, and kept there by means of a broad, flat, and turned-up spatula; the joint was thus exposed, and after the synovial capsule had been cut through as far as could be seen, the leg was forcibly flexed, the crucial ligaments, almost breaking in the act, only required a slight touch of the knife to divide them completely. The articular surfaces of the bones were now completely brought to view, and the diseased portions removed by means of suitable saws, the soft parts being hold aside by assistants."[68]

Results of Excision of Knee-joint:—Holmes's Table of recent cases from 1873-1878—

Buck's Operation for Anchylosed Knee-Joint.—The principle of this operation is to remove a triangular portion of bone, which is to include the surfaces of the femur and tibia, which have anchylosed in an awkward position, and by this means to set the bones free, and enable the limb to be straightened. Access to the joint may be obtained by either of the two methods already described. Sections of the bones are then to be made with the saw, so as to meet posteriorly a little in front of the posterior surface of the anchylosed joint, and thus remove a triangular portion of bone; the portion still remaining, and which still keeps up the deformity, is then to be broken through as best you can, either by a chisel, or a saw, or forced flexion. The ends are to be pared off by bone-pliers, and the surfaces brought into as close apposition as possible. The operation is a difficult one, a gap being generally left between the anterior edges of the bones, from the unyielding nature of the integuments behind, and the difficulty of removing the posterior projecting edges from their close proximity to the artery. Of twenty cases on record, eight died, and two required amputation.

Relation of Age to result in Excision of Knee-Joint from Hodge's Tables.

Of 182 complete cases:—

Excision of the Ankle-Joint.—In what cases is it to be done, and how much bone is to be removed?

In cases of compound dislocation of the ankle-joint, the tibia and fibula are apt to be protruded either in front or behind. When this happens it is a dislocation generally very difficult to reduce, and when reduced to retain in position. In such cases, if there seems to be any chance of retaining the foot, excision of the articular ends of tibia and fibula greatly add to the probabilities in its favour. It may be done without any new wound, and, in general, by an ordinary surgeon's saw.

When the astragalus does not protrude, it seems to matter little for the future result whether its articular surface be removed or not. When, on the other hand, it protrudes, as a result either of the displacement of the entire foot, or of a dislocation complete or partial of the astragalus itself, there is no doubt that excision either of its articular surface or of the entire bone will give very excellent results. JÄger reports twenty-seven such cases, with only one fatal, and one doubtful result.

In cases of disease of the Ankle-joint.—Excision has been performed a good many times, and should in most cases be complete. A work like this is not the place to discuss the propriety of operations so much as the method of performing them, but one remark may be permitted. Few points of surgical diagnosis are more difficult than it is to tell whether in any given case disease is confined to the ankle-joint, and whether or not the bones of the tarsus participate. If they do even to a slight extent, no operation which attacks the ankle-joint only has any reasonable chance of success. It may look well for a time, but sinuses remain, the irritation of the operation only hastens the progress of the disease of the bone, and the result will almost certainly be disappointing, amputation being almost the inevitable dernier ressort.

Methods of Operating:—

Mr. Hancock has been very successful by the following method:—

Commence the incision (Plate II. figs. B.B.) about two inches above and behind the external malleolus, and carry it across the instep to about two inches above and behind the internal malleolus. Take care that this incision merely divides the skin, and does not penetrate beyond the fascia. Reflect the flap so made, and next cut down upon the external malleolus, carrying your knife close to the edge of the bone, both behind and below the process, dislodge the peronei tendons, and divide the external lateral ligaments of the joint. Having done this, with the bone-nippers cut through the fibula, about an inch above the malleolus, remove this piece of bone, dividing the inferior tibio-fibular ligament, and then turn the leg and foot on the outside. Now carefully dissect the tendons of the tibialis posticus and flexor communis digitorum from behind the internal malleolus. Carry your knife close round the edge of this process, and detach the internal lateral ligament, then grasping the heel with one hand, and the front of the foot with the other, forcibly turn the sole of the foot downwards, by which the lower end of the tibia is dislocated and protruded through the wound. This done, remove the diseased end of the tibia with the common amputating saw, and afterwards with a small metacarpal saw placed upon the back of the upper articulating process of the astragalus, between that process and the tendo Achillis, remove the former by cutting from behind forwards. Replace the parts in situ; close the wound carefully on the inner side and front of the ankle; but leave the outside open, that there may be a free exit for discharge, apply water-dressing, place the limb on its outer side on a splint, and the operation is completed.

Skin, external, and internal ligaments, and the bones are the only parts divided, no tendons and no arteries of any size.[69]

Barwell's method by lateral incisions is briefly as follows:—

On the outer side, an incision over the lower three inches of the fibula turns forward at the malleolus at an angle, and ends about half an inch above the base of the outer metatarsal. The flap is to be reflected, fibula divided about two inches from its lower end by the forceps, and dissected out, leaving peronei tendons uncut. A similar incision on the inner side terminates over the projection of the internal cuneiform bone; the sheaths of the tendons under inner angle are then to be divided, and the artery and nerve avoided; the internal lateral ligament is then to be divided, the foot twisted outwards, so as to protrude the astragalus and tibia at the inner wound. The lower end of the tibia and top of the astragalus are to be sawn off by a narrow-bladed saw passing from one wound to the other.[70]

Dr. M. Buchanan of Glasgow has described an operation by which the joint can be excised through a single incision over the external malleolus.

Results.—So far as can be gathered from cases already published, the results are very often (at least in one out of every two cases) unsatisfactory. Sinuses remain, which do not heal, the limbs are useless, and amputation is in the end necessary.

Langenbeck has performed it sixteen times during the last Schleswig-Holstein war (in 1864), and the Bohemian war in 1866, with only three deaths. In these cases the operation was subperiosteal.

Excision of the Scapula.—More or less of the scapula has in many cases been removed along with the arm, and even with the addition of portion of the clavicle.

Excision of the entire bone, leaving the arm, has been performed in two instances by Mr. Syme. The procedure must vary according to the nature and shape of the tumour on account of which the operation is performed. Mr. Syme operated as follows:—

In the first case, one of cerebriform tumour of the bone, he "made an incision from the acromion process transversely to the posterior edge of the scapula, and another from the centre of this one directly downwards to the lower margin of the tumour. The flaps thus formed being reflected without much hÆmorrhage, I separated the scapular attachment of the deltoid, and divided the connections of the acromial extremity of the clavicle. Then, wishing to command the subscapular artery, I divided it, with the effect of giving issue to a fearful gush of blood, but fortunately caught the vessel and tied it without any delay. I next cut into the joint and round the glenoid cavity, hooked my finger under the coracoid process, so as to facilitate the division of its muscular and ligamentous attachments, and then pulling back the bone with all the force of my left hand, separated its remaining attachments with rapid sweeps of the knife." (Plate III. fig. g.)

Mr. Syme's second case was also one of tumour of the scapula; the head of the humerus had been excised two years before.

He removed it by two incisions, one from the clavicle a little to the sternal side of the coracoid, directed downwards to the lower boundary of the tumour, another transversely from the shoulder to the posterior edge of the scapula. The clavicle was divided at the spot where it was exposed, and the outer portion removed along with the scapula.[71]

The author has in a case of osseous tumour removed the whole body of the scapula, leaving glenoid, spine, acromion and anterior margin with excellent result and a useful arm.

Large portions of the shafts of the humerus, radius, and ulna have been removed for disease or accident, and useful arms have resulted; but as the operative procedures must vary in every case, according to the amount of bone to be removed, and the number and position of the sinuses, no exact directions can be given.

For very interesting cases of such resections reference may be made to Wagner's treatise on the subject, translated and enlarged by Mr. Holmes, and to Williamson's Military Surgery, p. 227.

Excision of Metacarpals and Phalanges.—To excise the metacarpal implies that the corresponding finger is left. Except in cases of necrosis, where abundance of new bone has formed in the detached periosteum, the results of such excisions do not encourage repetition, the digits which remain being generally very useless. It is quite different, however, if it is the thumb that is involved; and every effort should, in every case, be made to retain the thumb, even in the complete absence of its metacarpal bone. For the good results of a case in which Mr. Syme excised the whole metacarpal bone for a tumour, see his Observations in Clinical Surgery, p. 38.

The operation is not difficult, and requires merely a straight incision over the dorsum, extending the whole length of the bone.

In the same way the proximal phalanx of the thumb may be excised, and yet, if proper care be taken, a very useful limb be left. I quote entire the following case by Mr. Butcher of Dublin:—

Excision of Proximal Phalanx of the Thumb.—The thumb of the right hand was crushed by the crank of a steam-engine. The proximal phalanx was completely shivered; its fragments were removed, the cartilage of the proximal end of the distal phalanx, and also of the head of the metacarpal bone, were pared off with a strong knife. The digit was put up on a splint fully extended. In about a month cure was nearly complete, a firm dense tissue took the place of the removed phalanx, and the power of flexing the unguinal was nearly complete.[72]

Excision of the Joints of the Fingers.—These operations may be performed for compound dislocation, specially when the thumb is injured; no directions can be given for the incisions.[73]

In cases of disease it is rarely necessary or advisable to attempt to save a finger, but if the metacarpo-phalangeal joint of the thumb be affected, excision should be performed with the hope of saving the thumb. A single free incision on the radial side of the joint will give sufficient access.

Excision of the Os Calcis.—In those comparatively rare cases in which the os calcis is alone affected, the rest of the tarsus and the ankle-joint being healthy, a considerable difference of opinion exists as to the proper course to be followed. By some surgeons it is considered best merely to gain free access to the diseased bone, and then remove by a gouge all the softened and altered portions, leaving a shell of bone all round, of course saving the periosteum and avoiding interference with the joint. This operation requires no special detailed instruction. We find many surgeons, among them Fergusson and Hodge, supporters of this comparatively modest operation. The author has many times performed this operation with excellent results. Even when nothing but periosteum is left, the new bone becomes strong and of full size.

Excision of the whole of the diseased bone at its joints, with or without an attempt to leave some of the periosteum, has been deemed necessary by others. Holmes, who has had considerable experience, removes the bone at once by the following incisions, without paying any reference to the periosteum:—

Operation.—An incision (Plate III. fig. f.) is commenced at the inner edge of the tendo Achillis, and drawn horizontally forwards along the outer side of the foot, somewhat in front of the calcaneo-cuboid joint, which lies midway between the outer malleolus and the end of the fifth metatarsal bone. This incision should go down at once upon the bone, so that the tendon should be felt to snap as the incision is commenced. It should be as nearly as possible on a level with the upper border of the os calcis, a point which the surgeon can determine, if the dorsum of the foot is in a natural state, by feeling the pit in which the extensor brevis digitorum arises. Another incision is then to be drawn vertically across the sole, commencing near the anterior end of the former incision, and terminating at the outer border of the grooved or internal surface of the os calcis, beyond which point it should not extend, for fear of wounding the posterior tibial vessels. If more room be required, this vertical incision may be prolonged a little upwards, so as to form a crucial incision. The bone being now denuded by throwing back the flaps, the first point is to find and lay open the calcaneo-cuboid joint, and then the joints with the astragalus. The close connections between these two bones constitute the principal difficulty in the operation on the dead subject; but these joints will frequently be found to have been destroyed in cases of disease. The calcaneum having been separated thus from its bony connections by the free use of the knife, aided, if necessary, by the lever, lion-forceps, etc., the soft parts are next to be cleaned off its inner side with care, in order to avoid the vessels, and the bone will then come away.[74]

Attempts may occasionally be made in such an operation to save a portion of periosteum in attachment to the soft parts, but success or failure in this seems to have very little effect on the future result.

Hancock's Method.—A single flap was formed in the sole, with the convexity looking forwards, by an incision from one malleolus to the other.

Greenhow's Method.—Incisions made from the inner and outer ankles, meeting at the apex of the heel, and then others extending along the sides of the foot, the flaps being dissected back so as to expose the bone and its connections.[75]