. The Practitioner . Fig. 1.—Standing on Fig. 2. -iraciured lower t)of femur. These two illustrated cases,walking on their fracturedlimbs, show clearly the differencebetween the treatment of severefractures with the Thomasssplint and my Ambulatoryappliance and war splint. The reason I invented thewar splint in the beginning ofthe war was, that I was notsatisfied with the action of theThomass splint, of which I hadconsiderable experience. I maintain that the ringcannot be fitted so as to keepthe pressure solely on thetuber-ischium and surroundinggluteal muscles like my splintdo
. The Practitioner . Fig. 1.—Standing on Fig. 2. -iraciured lower t)of femur. These two illustrated cases,walking on their fracturedlimbs, show clearly the differencebetween the treatment of severefractures with the Thomasssplint and my Ambulatoryappliance and war splint. The reason I invented thewar splint in the beginning ofthe war was, that I was notsatisfied with the action of theThomass splint, of which I hadconsiderable experience. I maintain that the ringcannot be fitted so as to keepthe pressure solely on thetuber-ischium and surroundinggluteal muscles like my splintdoes, as the patient wrigglesdown and the ring slips up,with the result that considerablepressure has to be borne onthe OS pubis instead, which inmost cases is unbearable if anyextension is to be maintained. This painful pressure defeatsthe object of the Thomasssplint, as the muscles contractand counteract the go/^ of the war caseswhere I was called in by thesurgeons were treated with aThomass splint for a con-siderable time, and in some
Size: 1130px × 2213px
Photo credit: © Reading Room 2020 / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1800, bookde, bookpublisherlondon, booksubjectmedicine
