The American Practitioner and News. Vol. XXV. No. 3. Feb. 1, 1898: A Semi-Monthly Journal of Medicine and SurgeryVarious
Science
The American Practitioner and News. Vol. XXV. No. 3. Feb. 1, 1898: A Semi-Monthly Journal of Medicine and Surgery
Various
Medicine -- Periodicals
Dr. T. S. Bullock: I am inclined very much to agree in the opinion
expressed by Dr. Bailey. I have frequently seen, after repeated attacks
of gonorrhea, a testicle that had become enlarged, without any pain. The
testicle in this case appears to be perfectly smooth, and in view of the
fact that tubercular disease of this organ may exist for a long time
without affecting the general system, I should certainly keep the
testicle until my general health began to show some evidence of
declination.
Dr. F. C. Wilson: The question is a very difficult one to decide. There
is one feature of the case that has not been sufficiently emphasized,
and that is the probable damage to the testicle itself by the repeated
attacks of gonorrhea. We know that the use of the testicle, so far as
any procreative uses may be concerned, has probably been abrogated by
these repeated attacks of gonorrhea, and with this view of the case the
question of removal of the testicle by surgical means would be
simplified; and it seems to me with the tuberculous history, if the
question could be decided even approximately, or even probably, that it
is tubercular, then it had better be removed. But it seems to me I would
first make every effort to solve the question, even aspirating or
removing a small part of the tissue so as to be able to make a
microscopical examination, and in that way possibly throw some light on
the subject.
Dr. W. O. Roberts: It strikes me that this is tubercular, although it
may have been, as Dr. Howard says, excited by gonorrhea. The condition
feels to me nodulated and not smooth, and the disease appears to be
located chiefly if not entirely in the epididymis, and I think the
testicle should be removed. Whether it is tuberculous or not the
usefulness of the organ is destroyed, and I think it ought to come out
if it is tuberculous, especially because the other testicle will become
involved. So far as the cosmetic appearance is concerned, if that is a
feature in the case, we could insert a celluloid testicle. I believe if
the affected testicle is not removed, granting the diagnosis of
tuberculosis to be correct, that the other testicle will surely become
involved.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account