258

habits which are a part of the antiseptic system, than fromthe uncompromising adoption of the principle itself. Tobegin with, he here takes for granted what he has to prove.What if I were to say that the unproved mortality dependedon the giving up of such modes of dressing with carbolic oil,poultices, strapping, &c., as Mr. Savory advocates, and theadoption of Lister’s method in every detail, mal-hygiene beingleft undisturbed. It would probably be found that I was asnear the truth as he was. One conjecture may be as goodas another, but no number of conjectures constitute anargument.

Besides, it is not the case that cleanly habits, in the sensethat Mr. Savory means, are a part of antiseptics. Thewound is put up and left unwashed for days, or even a week;and if the observance of strict antiseptic method had notbeen attended to, the results would have been, if possible,

. worse than under the original dressings. Mr. Savory’s posi-tion would have been more tenable if he had shown thatthere were improvements in the hygienic conditions of thesehospitals at the time that Lister’s plan was introduced;but no such improvement is mentioned. Mr. Savory’s planwants the co-operation of sweet air, and still occasionallyfails ; Lister’s plan can defy foul air, and frequently suc-ceeds. Other things then being equal, in the matter pureand simple of guarding wounds against septicism is notLister’s plan better than Savory’s ?Mr. Savory does not employ drainage-tubes. When a

collection of fluid forms, he lets it out with a probe ordirector. Now he does not dress his wounds oftener than

every twenty-four hours ; how does he know that the open-ing made by the director will not have closed before anothertwenty-four hours, and so permit another collection to form?His treatment is helpless till the fluid has distended thewound cavity, and caused the mischief; drainage-tubingprevents the collection from forming at all, and the mischiefdoes not occur. If a gush of fluid follows the removal of apiece of tubing, then the process has been imperfectly carriedout : either the tube has become blocked, or has not beeninserted deeply enough, or suiucient support has not beenapplied to the abscess cavity to prevent its bagging. Noone, so far as I am aware, ever claimed for drainage-tubing"a power to draw fluid upward out of a cavity." All thathas been claimed for the tubes is, a power to keep an open-ing ready for the exit of fluids that are slowly ejected froma cavity which is contracting by its own resilience or underthe uniform pressure of a bandage. A drainage-tube isneither a suction-pump nor a water-hose. It is simply acloaca that permits the sewage to flow, and gives it nopower to stagnate.Mr. Savory has much to say in favour of poultices, and

most surgeons will agree with him. But it cannot be deniedthat the application of a poultice is evidence of a surgicalfailure. It is a proof that the surgeon has failed to securethe most favourable result in healing. Poulticing promotes

suppuration, it is said; and we are asked to believe that thisis a healthy process, something to be encouraged. And soit is, in one sense. A granulating suppurating surface is a

secreting, not an absorbing one, and so affords an effectivebarrier to the fermenting compound of poultice-juice andpus getting into the system. But in another sense suppura-tion is to be avoided, for every pus-cell which is floatedaway in the discharge is a dead loss, not only to the systembut to the granulation tissue. Pus is a waste product inproportion as we manufacture it by our treatment. There isno pathological reason why every pus-cell which is set freemight not be conserved for the building up of the new tissue.And it is a clinical fact that granulations may be built up,almost without suppuration, much more quickly than withit, as everyone that has treated ulcers antiseptically knows.It might be interesting, by the way, to know how manydeaths that do not appear in statistics as blood-poisoning,could be relegated to the domain of pus, poultices, andhectic.Another argument is founded on the supposed practical

difficulties in dressing according to Lister’s plan ; that thereis considerable disturbance of the patient as well as someelaborateness in the process. The first objection is best metby a reference to those who have had experience of bothplans. Antiseptic wounds are painless, and this, I suppose,because of their freedom from inflammation ; a properlyapplied gauze dressing is as comfortable as the most skilfullymanufactured poultice ; and, seeing that the wound is leftuntouched for days at a time, there is not much to complainof in the way of disturbance. The second objection is a rea

one, so far as the surgeon is concerned, for it demands thathe shall be, to some extent, a scientific manipulator in addi-tion to his other accomplishments. Antisepticism is not yetsurgery made easy, though it strives after being surgery madesafe.A case is quoted where a large chronic abscess was opened,

and treated after Lister’s method, and the result was anelevated temperature. The drainage-tube was removed, abread poultice was applied, and the temperature fell. DidMr. Savory seriously mean us to infer from this one casethat the irritation of a drainage-tube is sufficient to elevatetemperature ? If he did so I should immediately quoteanother case-a dozen if necessary-to show that drainage-tubing does not elevate temperature. Nay more, I can quotemore than one case to show that a change from antisepticsand drainage to poulticing has resulted in anything but de-pression of temperature.In conclusion, Mr. Savory freely admits that the principle

on which Lister’s surgery rests is a sound one, and, with per-fect justice, quotes Dr. Roberts to the effect that "theessence of the principle is not exactly to protect the woundsfrom septic organisms, but to defend the patient against theseptic oison." Will the defence be perfect if it does notinclude the wound ? On Mr. Savory’s own showing his ownmethod of defence is not a perfect one-he only imperfectlyexcludes the poison. Mr. Savory will admit that septicaemia,can never arise from a discharge which is simply aseptic;why, therefore, does he not make use of the only form ofdressing which as yet has been shown competent to preservedischarges in this condition? Surely no surgeon in thesedays will say spero izeliorct 1)2-oboque, deteriora sequor.

I am, &c.,J. GREIG SMITH, M.A., C.M.,

Surgeon to the Bristol Royal Infirmary.Clifton, Bristol, August llth.

J. GREIG SMITH, M.A., C.M.,Surgeon to the Bristol Royal Infirmary.

THE TREATMENT OF HYDROPHOBIA.

Sir,JAMES NICHOLLS, M.D., F.R.C.S. (exam.)

To the Edito1’ of THE LANCET.SIR,—If Dr. Lownds refers to your last year’s volume he

will find a case of hydrophobia treated in our infirmary herein April of that year, and I think he will agree that thecourse pursued was both rational and successful; the prin-ciple being to let the disease wear itself out, the patientbeing constantly kept under the influences of chloroformand subcutaneous injections of calabar bean and narcotics.Having seen already several cases of this horrid disease,

I myself should be sorry to have personally another one totreat; nevertheless I am most anxious that this treatmentshould be well tested, firmly believing that by its meansat least some recoveries may ensue-that is, if carried outwith perseverance for days, and that the disease be. reocognised in an early stage. To this end I shall be mostgrateful to any of your readers who, having a case of rabies,will take the trouble to telegraph to me, when, if at allpracticable, and the distance be within reasonable limits, Ishall be pleased to see it and assist in its treatment, whichmust be incessant and continued. Since the publication ofthe case above referred to I have been expecting to seereports of others treated on the same principle, but as yetin this I have been disappointed. The more I think overthe cases I have seen the more convinced I am that the casebefore my last might have been saved, had I had, as in thislatter, frequent relays of strong arms with determined andwilling minds, void of the common prejudice about thedisease.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,JAMES NICHOLLS, M.D., F.R.C.S. (exam.)

Chelmsford, August 12th, 1879.

STAFF-SURGEON NORBURY, R.N., OF FORTEKOWE.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.SiR,—The Dublin University and Irish Colleges are

showering academic honours on Surgeon-Major Reynolds,A.M.D., for his participation in the night’s defence ofRorke’s Drift, and rightly so ; but I think there is anothermedical officer of the sister service who is equally deserving.I allude to Staff-Surgeon Norbury, of the Royal Navy, whowas the principal medical o::;cer of General Pearson’s column

259

of invasion, and, besides being present at the battle ofInyezane, the only fight in which the Zulus attacked ourforces in the open, and where he attended to the woundedunder a heavy fire, the ambulance by which he stoodhaving been repeatedly struck, was also principal medicalofficer of Fort Ekowe during its investment by the Zulus fornearly three months. Here, during a period of intenseanxiety, almost entirely without medicines or medicalsupplies, with a very large sick list, it was through hisjudicious arrangements, both sanitary and medical, that amuch greater mortality among the troops did not take place ;and he has been most highly spoken of by General Pearson inboth his published despatches.

Staff-Surgeon Norbury received his medical education atSt. Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, and is the author ofnumerous valuable papers, both in the medical periodicalsand the " Health of the Navy ; " and I think that some ofthe English Universities or Colleges might very fittinglybestow on him some token of their recognition.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,JUSTITIA.

THE AFGHAN WAR AND THE MEDICALSERVICE.

To the Editor of THE LANCET.SIR,—I hope it has not escaped your observation that, of

the large number of high honours and decorations thathave been distributed for the Afghan War, only one C.B.has been given to the entire medical department, and that isto the senior medical officer of the British forces. The IndianMedical Department has been entirely ignored. I thinkthe great influence possessed by THE LANCET might wellbe used to rectify this marked neglect. While such invidiousdistinctions exist between the military and medical rewardsfor the self-same service, the medical service can never standas high as it should. The whole of the Medical Services,British and Indian, will thank you for allowing a notice ofthis slight. Yours, &c.,

SURGEON-MAJOR.

THE WAR IN ZULULAND.

THE following private letter has been handed to us forpublication as of general professional interest :-DEAR MR. BRYANT,-Though for several reasons the

surgical experience gained during the present war here hasnot I think been very extensive, yet I venture to hope thata few observations made on the spot may not be entirelywithout interest to you. The number of wounded has notbeen great, because, in the first place, only comparativelysmall bodies of British troops have been engaged in any oneaction, and for another and more terrible reason, becauseany man seriously wounded so as to be incapable of moving,has, whenever the opportunity offered, been remorselesslybutchered by our savage enemy. Neither have manywounded Zulu prisoners passed through our hands. A certainproportion of the Zulu wounded have I fear been killed, notto any extent by British troops, but by our native allies,whose mode of warfare is of the same exterminatingcharacter as their enemies’. Wounded Zulus have often beenallowed by our officers to escape, as, owing to the scarcity ofsupplies, it was not considered advisable to burden ourselveswith many prisoners; and perhaps a stronger reason thanany for our having seen so few of the enemy’s wounded isthat, in common with other wild animals, they can carry animmense quantity of shot, and will crawl into the bushafter receiving injuries which would in many cases provealmost immediately fatal, or at least utterly disabling, to aEuropean. Our wounded have been treated here for themost part in huts and marquees. The huts were constructedof reeds fastened into a wooden framework and plastered withtempered clay inside and out; they were constructed to ac-commodate about 14 patients; the floors were just plainearth, much improved by a large coarse waterproof sheetbeing stretched tightly over them, which prevented exhala-tions rising from the ground, and foul matters from possiblysoaking in ; ventilation was amply provided for, thoughthis matter required constant attention, as the patients, likemost of their class, have, as a rule, the greatest horror offresh air, and would stop up our ventilators on all oppor-

tunities. The huts, however, seem to have answered theirpurpose perfectly, as, though often terribly and unavoidablyovercrowded, we have had no single case of pyaemia, ery-sipelas, gangrene, or phlebitis, though they have beenoccupied since January.The majority of the cases of gunshot wounds have been

slight. Two amputations of the thigh for gunshot fracturehave been performed: one, about the middle, proved fatal in afew hours ; the other, at junction of middle and lower third,or perhaps even a little lower, is doing well. A dividedfemoral artery was tied for secondary haemorrhage at theseat of the injury, but, unfortunately, the patient sank,having lost much blood before the operation. There havealso been, of course, the usual extractions of bullets undercircumstances of varying difficulty. I am more than everconvinced, however, that if a bullet cannot be reached withthe finger, accompanied by suitable manipulation of thetissues on which it presumably lies, it is quite the ex-

ception to discover it by means of any probe or other instru-ment at that time. I have noticed a marked differencebetween the wounds caused by the Martini-Henry bulletand those of the Kranker (almost identical with the Snider)which was used by the Russians. The Martini certainlymakes a cleaner wound through the soft parts, with lesslaceration, than the larger softer bullet thrown from theSnider, the latter having also a much higher trajectory thanthe Martini, which seems to me an important element toconsider, and I think, in soft parts, the Martini woundsheal better; but if a bone obstruct the path of the pro-jectile, the smashing caused by the Martini is incomparablygreater on the whole. I think a Snider ball more likely tostop a man in the heat of action, because I think it wouldproduce greater shock. I think you have made almost allthese observations, however, in your book-which, by theway, is quite the text-book, I find, of all the army surgeonsand others here-indeed, I think no other is used. I mightmention one or two remarkable cases which have comeunder notice.Major F., 90th Regiment, wounded March 29th in the

Zulu attack on Camballa camp. Very large circular ballstruck him on left temple about one inch behind edge oforbit, passed through both orbits and ethmoid bone, di-viding both optic nerves, and lodged beneath the skin ofright temporal region, where it was extracted ; total blind-ness, of course, at once ; semi-comatose condition (probablypressure backwards of effused blood ?) ; eyeballs immenselyprotruding. Treatment : perfect quiet, low diet, purgatives;removal, after a few days, of anterior portions of eyeballs,which showed tendency to slough. Discharge set up fromeyes and left wound; brain symptoms relieved, but re-turned on two or three occasions, when discharge becamescanty. After between two and three months’ treatment, wellenough to be invalided to England. A most melancholyand, as far as I know, unique case.

Carl F., private Frontier Light Horse, at the action ofKlobain Mountains, March 28th, was struck just behind theangle of the lower jaw on the right side. The projectilepassed directly inwards and penetrated the pharynx, whencethe patient vomited it at once into his mouth, and spat it

out into his hand ; it was a spherical ball about half an inchin diameter. This man never had a bad symptom, and wasdischarged with his wound perfectly healed in about sixweeksfrom date of admission. The principal treatment consisted ingiving him such liquid nourishment as he could take.

! I have had under my care three penetrating wounds ofthe chest ; two proved speedily fatal, the remaining one is ina fair way for recovery. We have had post-mortem exami-nations of the fatal cases, and from them, as well as fromother observations I have made, I have no doubt that incases where fluid is present in any quantity in the cavity ofthe pleura, after a penetrating wound, it should be evacuatedby some means or other as speedily as possible. I hadneither drainage-tube nor aspirator at my command, or Ithink one of the fatal cases of perforating chest woundmight possibly have been saved, as, in spite of careful posi-tion of patient, and making the dependent wound as openas possible with the finger daily, the chest was found afterdeath to contain an immense quantity of fluid. In anothersuch case I should not hesitate to enlarge the wound with abistoury.

I am sorry to say that for the last two months I have my-self been rather an interesting surgical case. We have hadmany night alarms, and on one such occasion I carried awounded man on my back into the fort to a place of safety