Description of the straight and curved forceps.—Mode of action.—Indications.—Rules for applying the forceps.—History of the forceps.
Description of the straight and curved forceps.—Mode of action.—Indications.—Rules for applying the forceps.—History of the forceps.
Before describing the various species of dystocia, or faulty labour, it will be necessary to consider the different means with which the increasing experience of years has furnished us, of giving artificial assistance in such cases. These may be brought under two heads, first, where delivery can be effected with safety to the mother and her child; secondly, where this can only be effected at the expense of the infant’s life. Under the first head come the forceps, turning, the Cæsarean operation, and artificial premature labour; under the second are craniotomy or perforation, and embryotomy.
Of these the forceps is by far the simplest and safest means of artificial delivery, and is therefore an operation which should always be had recourse to in preference to any of the others wherever it is possible.
The forceps is the simplest imitation of nature, for in fact it is nothing more than a pair of artificial hands introduced one on each side the head. It is impossible to define any precise limits of pelvic contraction, within which the forceps can, or beyond which it cannot, be safely applied, for the difference in the size and hardness of the child’s head, and in the condition of the soft parts, will greatly modify the degree of resistance to the progress of the labour: hence the attempt to fix the exact degree of contraction beyond which the forceps becomes inapplicable is quiteimpracticable, as in some cases we might be led to make a trial of it where it would be quite improper, and in others have recourse to the perforator where a cautious application of the forceps would have been attended with success. For the farther consideration of this subject we must refer to the chapter onDystocia Pelvica.
The forceps consists of three parts—the blades, the lock, and the handles.
The blades of the present forceps are not solid, but are merely elongated bows of polished metal, by which they are not only rendered much lighter, but allow the most prominent parts of the head to project between them, and thereby take up no additional room when introduced into the pelvis. In the simplest form, viz. the straight forceps, the blades have only one curvature for adapting them to the convexity of the head. The degree of curve varies a good deal in different instruments: the greater the curve the more firmly will the blades hold, because they act more or less as blunt hooks, and do not require much pressure upon the head for the purpose, but on the other hand, they are more difficult to introduce; whereas, blades which are slightly curved can be applied with greater ease, but require much more pressure upon the head in order to hold fast.
It has been a general rule with almost every modification of forceps, that the greatest distance between their blades should not be less than two inches and a half, for as this is the breadth of the basis cranii in the fœtal head, it would be impossible to compress the head beyond this extent. The form of the head curvature will determine the situation of the point where the blades are most distant from each other: in some forceps it is about one-third the length of the blades from their extremities; in some it is nearly equidistant; whereas, in others it is nearer to the lock; the medium between these extremes is the best. The extremities of the blades ought to be at least half an inch apart: in this country they are usually somewhat more; on the Continent they are much less, being rarely more than one or two lines asunder. The fenestræ, or open spaces in the blades, should be wide and ample, for not only are the projecting parts of the head allowed to protrude between them, but the pressure of the blades is diffused over a larger extent of surface: this is remarkably seen in the forceps of the late Dr. Hopkins and that of Professor Davis, both of which are extensively used. It is also important that the edge at the extremities of the blades should be well rounded and not too thin; it is thus less liable to catch against corrugations either of the vagina or fœtal scalp. The greatest breadth of the fenestræ is generally towards the extremities of the blades; in some, their edges are parallel; whereas, in those of Drs. Orme and Lowder the greatest breadth is near the lock: upon the whole, anoval shaped fenestra is the best, for it can be easily introduced, and has the advantages of a wide blade.
In 1751 and the following year another curve was given to the blades of the forceps by the celebrated M. Levret of Paris, and by the equally distinguished Dr. Smellie of London, by which the instrument was adapted to the curve formed by the axes of the brim, cavity, and outlet of the pelvis, and by which the head could be seized much higher in the pelvis than by the straight forceps. Each have an equal claim to the merit of having invented this “pelvic curvature,” as it has been called: the priority of the invention is perhaps due to Levret; but as he made a secret of it for some years, it is impossible to ascertain the precise fact. The pelvic curve, as it is called,[81]is especially adapted to the long forceps, which thus becomes an instrument of very considerable power. Numerous modifications of these curved forceps have since been made, but they are merely varieties of the original ones invented by Smellie and Levret, which have become the national instruments of their respective countries.
Perhaps the greatest improvements in the blades of modern times is seen in the forceps of Dr. Hopkins, above alluded to: the head curvature forms an elongated oval, admirably adapted to the form of the fœtal head when considerably compressed during a difficult labour; and from the great breadth of the fenestræ, the pressure of the blades is applied over a large extent of surface; the pelvic curve is but slight, being greater on the posterior edge of fenestræ than on the anterior; the blades themselves are thin, their inner surface flat to ensure a firmer hold, their outer surface slightly rounded in order to be introduced with greater ease; and for a similar reason the edges of their extremities are somewhat thicker and carefully rounded in a peculiar manner.
Naegelé’s forceps.
The lock of the modern English forceps consists of two deep grooves, into which the shank of each blade mutually fits, so that the two blades are fixed upon each other merely by the pressure exerted upon the handles. In former times the blades were united together by a pivot, which could screw and unscrew at pleasure. This was abandoned by Chapman, who published the first work in English on operative midwifery.[82]He found that the forceps held better without the pivot than with it; and from what we have brought forward elsewhere (Med. Gaz.Jan. 8, 1831,) there can be little doubt that he invented the lock which is now generally used in this country. Chapman’s forceps was adopted in France prior to this improvement in its lock, especially by Gregoire, and has retained the original pivot lock which now forms one of the most distinguishing marks between the French and English forceps.Although the pivot forms by far the firmest lock, for the blades can never slip from each other, still the difficulty in locking, and also in separating, the blades at a moment’s notice, render it much inferior to the English lock. An ingenious modification was invented by the late Professor Von Siebold of Berlin, but the most perfect lock is that of Professor Brüninghausen of Würzburg, first introduced by ourselves into this country, and commonly known among the instrument-makers under the name of Professor Naegelé’s forceps. The shank of one blade has a semicircular indentation, which at the moment of locking fits into a fixed pivot in the other: this, therefore, combines the advantages of the French and English locks. We can safely affirm, from extensive experience for many years, that there is even less difficulty in locking it than with the English lock: the blades are capable of instant separation, and yet when locked, the firmness of their union is equal to that of a pivot joint.
The handles of the English forceps are pieces of wood or ivory fixed upon each shank below the lock, flat upon the inside, convex externally and furnished with a depression or groove at the lower end for fixing a ligature round them. These handles were probably first introduced by Dr. Smellie, who seems to have borrowed the idea from the forceps of M. Mesnard, for the earlier English forceps, viz. of Giffard and Chapman, terminated in blunt hooks, those of the former being curved inwards, those of the latter outwards, a form of handle which has been retained in the French forceps up to the present time.
There are two pieces of forceps, thelongand theshortforceps; the former for cases where the head is still high in the pelvis, the latter when it is at the pelvic outlet and approaching the os externum; the former with few exceptions being curved, the latter straight.[83]
The forceps act in three ways, 1. by mere pulling; 2. as a species of double lever, by moving the handles from side to side;and 3. by compressing the head, thus still farther disposing it to elongate and adapt itself to the passage through which it has to be expelled.
The blades should always, if possible, be applied one on each side of the head, the position of which must be determined by the direction of the fontanelles and sutures, not by feeling for the ear, as is usually recommended in this country. The ear can seldom be reached without causing a good deal of pain, even under the most favourable circumstances; in cases, therefore, where the head is so impacted as to be incapable of advancing by the natural powers, it cannot surely be justifiable to force up the finger between the head and the pelvis to ascertain this point, the more so, as the soft parts soon become swollen and more or less inflamed, and, therefore, little able to bear such rude treatment. No operation requires such an intimate acquaintance with the mechanism of parturition as that for applying the forceps: it is simple and generally perfectly easy when the precise position of the head and its relations to the pelvis are accurately known; on the other hand, it is not less injurious and painful to the patient than difficult and unsatisfactory to the practitioner.
The most usual circumstances under which the forceps is applied, are where the head is already deep in the pelvis and approaching the os externum; in such cases it is generally required not so much for the purpose of overcoming an unusual degree of resistance, as for assisting the natural powers, which are becoming exhausted: the head is near the os externum, and therefore easily reached; and from there being little or no impaction present, the blades are applied without difficulty.
The application of the forceps when the head is at the upper part of the pelvis, and where the greater portion of it has not yet passed the brim, is rarely practised in this country, because as the necessity for performing the operation at this stage arises in most instances from contraction of the brim, the perforator has usually been preferred, wherever the expelling powers have proved incapable of overcoming the resistance to the passage of the head. The circumstance also of this condition requiring the long forceps has been another source of objection, from the much greater power which this instrument is capable of exerting, and from its being therefore more liable than the short forceps to prove mischievous in the hands of the inexperienced.
Cases however do occur where there is but a very slight want of proportion between the head and pelvis, where the obstacle is easily overcome, and where, but for the application of the forceps, the labour would either have been protracted to a dangerous degree, or have required the use of the perforator.[84]“On the whole,” says Dr. Burns, “I would give it as my opinion that a well instructed practitioner, who has already had someexperience in the use of the short forceps, is warranted to make a cautious, steady, but gentle attempt to apply and act with the long forceps in a case where he is not quite decided that the perforator is indispensable, and where the head is higher than admits the application of the short forceps.” (Principles of Midwifery, 9th ed. p. 493.)
In applying the forceps, whether short or long, there are two conditions which,cæteris paribus, are requisite in every case; first, that the os uteri shall be fully dilated; secondly, that the pains are within the bounds of what are commonly known as moderate pains. In the first case it will be very difficult and frequently quite impossible to pass the blades between the head and os uteri when only partly dilated; it will be difficult to avoid injuring its edge more or less, and if we do succeed in applying and locking the forceps, on making an extractive effort we shall find that the uterus descends with the head as we draw it down.
In the second place we ought never to apply the forceps whilst the pains are violent, for not only do they render its application difficult and even dangerous, but we are adding still farther to the force (already too great) with which the head is pressed against the pelvis. Where the head remains immoveable under violent exertions of the uterus, it is not a case for the forceps but for the perforator; nor does it admit of much delay, for it endangers much injury of the soft parts or even rupture of the uterus.
It is exceedingly difficult to assign any precise limits of pelvic contraction, within which the forceps can, and beyond which they cannot be applied, for the size and hardness of the fœtal head, the nature of the pains, and the condition of the patient must also be taken into account in every instance; hence, we frequently meet with cases where the pelvis is scarcely if at all contracted, and yet where the labour has been terminated with the greatest difficulty by means of the forceps; whereas, in others where we know the pelvis to be more or less deformed, the child has been delivered by the natural powers. This subject will be still farther considered underDystocia Pelvica.
Thegeneral indicationsfor the use of the forceps are two: 1. They are indicated in all labours which are difficult or impossible to complete, either from deficiency in the expelling powers, or from misproportion between the head and pelvis, or from the arm coming down with the head. 2. They are indicated by circumstances or accidental causes, which render labour dangerous for the mother or child, and where the danger can only be removed by hastening labour, as in cases of hæmorrhage, convulsions, syncope, alarming debility, faulty condition of the organs of respiration, danger of suffocation, obstinate vomiting, unusually severe pains in nervous irritable habits, hemorrhoidswhich have burst, hernia, retention of urine, determination of blood to the head, prolapsus of the cord, (in certain cases,) inflammation of the uterus, &c. (Naegelé,MS. Lectures.)
We have already stated that an intimate acquaintance with the mechanism of parturition is of the greatest importance in applying the forceps. Knowing that the head always presents in one of the two oblique diameters of the pelvis, and that the blades are applied on each side of the head, it follows that the forceps must always be applied in the contrary oblique diameter of the pelvis to that in which the head is. Before speaking of the operation itself, we must first consider what position of the patient will be the most convenient. In this country no alteration is made in her position, beyond bringing her close to the side of the bed, with the nates projecting as much as possible over the edge, for the greater convenience of the operator; unless this be attended to, it will be difficult to depress the handle of the upper blade sufficiently when introducing it. Upon the continent, and also in America, where the long forceps is more generally used, the patient is usually delivered on her back; she is placed in a half-sitting posture upon the edge of the bed, her back supported by pillows, &c., her feet resting on two chairs, between which the operator stands or sits, and applies the forceps in this position. This, in many respects, is the most convenient posture for him, but the very preparation which it requires cannot but be alarming to the patient, who is obliged to be a witness of all his manipulations; whereas, when she lies upon her left side, she is aware of little or no preparation being made, and if any slight exposure happens to be necessary, viz. at the moment of locking, it can be done without her knowledge.[85]
The simplest case for applying the forceps is, where the head has already descended nearly to the os externum, and has begun to press upon the perineum: it is for this that the straight forceps is chiefly intended; and as this is the instrument which is generally used, we shall describe its application first.
Mode of applying the forceps.Having ascertained that the rectum and bladder are empty, examined the position of the head, and warmed and greased the blades, we proceed to introduce the upper or lower blade first, according as its lock is directed forwards: this precaution is for the purpose of preventing the locks being turned away from each other when brought together after the introduction of the second blade. Thetrochanter major will guide us as to the precise position of the patient’s pelvis, and is especially useful in pointing out the direction of the left oblique diameter, in which the forceps (on account of the first position of the head being in the right oblique diameter) should be most frequently applied: in this case, we pass the upper blade, as it were, beneath the trochanter, and the lower one in the opposite direction.[86]
Let us suppose that the head is in the first position, with its sagittal suture parallel with the right oblique diameter of the pelvis, and that in accordance with the above rule, the upper blade is to be introduced first. Having passed one or two fingers up to the head, we guide the blade along them, depressing the handle so as to make the extremity of the blade lie closely upon the head, neither allowing the point alone to impinge upon the head, norvice versâ, to protrude against the vagina. The extremity of the blade, therefore, must be our guide for the direction in which we hold the handle: we must carefully insinuate this by a gentle vibratory motion between the head and passage which surrounds it: the convexity of the head will show the course which it has to take, nor is there any need of passing the finger farther; for when once the extremity of the blade is fairly engaged between the head and passage, it will almost guide itself, and needs little more than to be pushed on gently, the handle gradually rising according to the curve of the blade. The shank or handle should, therefore, be held lightly like a pen, by which means the operator will possess much more feeling with his instrument, than if he grasped it with his whole hand. As the blade advances, he should keep his eye on the general form of the pelvis, the curve of the loins, the situation of the trochanter and symphysis pubis, and thus gain a more accurate idea of the course which the instrument must take. This will, in great measure, depend upon the situation of the head: if it be quite down upon the perineum, the blade should be pointed towards the promontory of the sacrum, and the handle turned downwards and forwards; if it be still in the cavity of the pelvis, and only beginning to engage in the outlet, the blade must be directed upwards towards the centre of the brim, and the handle turned directly downwards. Having passed the blade to its full extent, we must press the handle backwards against the perineum, to allow sufficient room for the introduction of the second blade, and give it to an assistant or the nurse, with the caution to hold it steadily and firmly, especially during the pains, when it is apt to slip into the hollow of the sacrum if held carelessly.
As we have passed the upper blade behind the right acetabulum or foramen ovale, so now we must introduce the other in the opposite direction, viz. before the left sacro-iliac synchondrosis: and, as the blades being exactly opposite to each other is essential to the easy locking of the instrument, it will be necessary to guide the course of the second blade, not so much by the form of the pelvis, as by the direction of the first blade. It must, therefore, pass up, so that when introduced to its full extent, the inner surface of its handle shall correspond precisely to that of the first blade. The easy or difficult locking of the blades is a proof of their having been correctly or incorrectly introduced. If, therefore, on bringing the locks together we find that they do not correspond, that the inner surfaces of the handles are not parallel, but form an angle with each other, we must endeavour to rectify this, by withdrawing, to a short extent, that blade which deviates most from the proper direction, and pass it up again more correctly. All attempts to twist the handles so as to correspond with each other, are bad and cannot fail to put the patient to much suffering.
When we are about to lock the blades, we cannot be too careful in preventing the soft parts from being pinched between them, for it causes most intolerable pain, and frequently makes the patient give such an involuntary start, as to run the risk of altering the position of the instrument.
The whole process of introducing and fixing the forceps should be conducted in as gentle and gradual a manner as possible: no attempt should be made to proceed with the operation during a pain; and in no case is force either necessary or justifiable.
Every thing being now prepared for the extraction, we must endeavour to make this resemble as far as possible the natural expulsion. When a pain, therefore, comes on, we should grasp the handle firmly, and pull gently, at the same time giving them a rotatory motion. The direction of the handles, as before said, will depend upon the situation of the head in the pelvis: if it be at the outlet, it will point downwards and forwards; if in the cavity, nearly directly downwards. If the head makes but little or no advance with one or two efforts, it will be advisable to tie the handles firmly together, and thus keep up a continued pressure upon it, and dispose it the more to elongate and adapt itself to the passages. As it advances and begins to press upon the perineum, we must be more than ever cautious not to hurry the expulsion, and give the soft parts time to dilate sufficiently. At this period it is desirable to make the extractive effort not so much forwards as the direction of the handles would seem to indicate: we thus avoid pressing too severely upon the urethra and neck of the bladder, which might otherwise suffer, and assist the dilatation of the perineum. When the head is on the point of passing the os externum, all farther extractive efforts should cease; theperineum must be supported in the usual manner, and the head should be expelled if possible by the patient herself.[87]
In applying the curved forceps we must bear in mind another rule in addition to the one above-mentioned for selecting the first blade, viz. the pelvic curvature must correspond with that of the sacrum. As with the straight, so also with the curved forceps, the extremity of the blade will be our best guide as to the direction in which we should hold the handle at the moment of introduction; it must be directed more or less forwards in proportion to the degree of the pelvic curvature of the blade. If, for instance, it be the upper blade which is to be introduced first, we pass it obliquely over the lower thigh or nates of the mother, making it glide closely round the convexity of the head, between it and the pelvis, without impinging either on the one or the other. As the position of the head is still more distinctly oblique at this earlier period of its progress through the pelvis, so will the blades require a more oblique direction, and also (as in the former case) they must be introduced in the contrary oblique diameter to that in which the head is.
As the blade passes up between the head and pelvis, so does the handle gradually make a sweep backwards, until at length it approaches to the edge of the perineum. During the process of introduction, one or two fingers should press against the posterior edge of the blade to guide it up to the brim of the pelvis, and prevent its slipping too far backwards towards the hollow of the sacrum.
The second blade will be guided in its direction by that of the first: it must be introduced so that the inner surface of its handle corresponds exactly with that of the first. The locking must be performed under the same precautions as with the straight forceps: the more so, as in some cases it has to take place just within the os externum, and therefore requires the most careful attention to prevent the soft parts from being caught and pinched between the blades when they are brought together. In extracting the head we must bear in mind the part of the pelvis in which it is impacted, and make our effort in the direction of its axis; we must also recollect the curved form of the instrument, and that we must not pull in the direction in which the handles point, but rather hold them firmly with one hand, and, by pressing against the middle of the forceps with the other, guide the head downwards and backwards into the cavity of the pelvis. We shall thus make our extractive effort in the direction of the upper portion of the blades, or that part which has the chief hold upon the head: hence, therefore, as it descends, the handles are directedmore and more forwards, so that when it has reached the perineum, the handles will not only point forwards, but considerably upwards. Whilst extracting we should, as with the straight forceps, slowly move the handles from side to side, and even make them describe a circle: we thus not only use the forceps as a simple extracting instrument, but make it act as a lever in every direction, and greatly facilitate the advance of the head, even under circumstances of considerable impaction. It is in these cases where keeping up a continued pressure upon the head by tying the handles tightly together, and tightening it after every successive effort, has such excellent effects in diminishing the degree with which it is wedged against the pelvis and soft parts, and in disposing it by gradual elongation to assume a form which is better adapted for advancing through the passages.
The slow and gradual pressure of the forceps thus exerted upon the head of a living fœtus will have a very different result to that of the experiments by Baudelocque and others, in attempting to compress the head of a dead fœtus by the application of a sudden and powerful force. Even if we were capable of effecting no greater diminution of its lateral diameter than a quarter, or at the most, three-eighths of an inch, as stated by Dr. Burns, we should, in most cases of impacted head, where the forceps is justifiable, find it quite sufficient to remove the obstructing causes.
The forceps is also occasionally required in presentations of the face and nates. In the first case we must pass up the blades on each side of the face, and along the side of the head, having previously ascertained to which side of the pelvis the chin is turned. In nates cases, the blades should also be passed up along the sides of the child’s pelvis, and here the advantages of a broad fenestra will be very evident, for otherwise our hold will not be firm enough without exerting an improper degree of pressure.
Cases every now and then occur, where from convulsions, &c., it is desirable to apply the forceps whilst the patient is lying upon her back, as is practised upon the continent. “The patient is placed across the bed, propped up in a half-sitting posture, by pillows, &c., her pelvis resting upon the edge, her feet on two chairs, the knees supported by assistants. Two, and generally three fingers are passed, if possible, up to the os uteri, on the side where the blade is to be introduced: the index finger, is held a little behind the middle finger, so that this last, by projecting somewhat, forms a species of ledge upon which the blade slides, and which acts as a fulcrum to it. The handle is held at first nearly perpendicular; but as the blade advances, it gradually approaches the horizontal direction, being guided by the pelvic curve of the instrument. The middle finger, along the ulnar surface of which the convex edge of the blade slides, prevents its extremity from passing too far backwards, and directs it in the axis of the pelvis. When introduced to the fullextent, the handle is inclined obliquely downwards, and is now grasped by an assistant passing his hand below the patient’s thigh. The other blade is introduced in the same way on the opposite side of the pelvis; and the locking, extraction, &c., conducted much in the same manner as in England.” (British and Foreign Med. Rev.vol. iii. April 1837, p. 419.)
History of the forceps.We have already mentioned some historical points connected with the improvements of the present French and English forceps; it will now be unnecessary to enter more fully into the history of this instrument. The earliest trace of the midwifery forceps which we possess is under the form of a secret in the hands of an English family, named Chamberlen. As to when and by whom it was first invented, this must probably remain for ever unknown; and at any rate there is no more reason to suppose that Dr. Hugh Chamberlen was the inventor than his father or brothers were. He was compelled to quit England on account of being involved in the political troubles of the time, and went to Paris in the beginning of the year 1770, and evidently had then been some time in possession of the secret. He returned to London, in August of the same year, having in vain attempted to sell it to the French government, after having entirely failed in a case of difficult labour which he had asserted he could deliver in a few minutes, although Mauriceau had stated that the Cæsarean operation would be required. Dr. H. Chamberlen published in 1772, a translation of Mauriceau’s work, which had appeared four years previously, and in his preface he publicly alludes to this secret, and says, “My father, brothers, and myself (though none else in Europe, as I know) have, by God’s blessing and our industry, attained to, and long practised a way to deliver women in this case without any prejudice to them or their infants: though all others (being obliged, for want of such an expedient, to use the common way) do or must endanger, if not destroy, one or both, with hooks.” He thus apologizes for not having divulged this secret: “there being my father and two brothers living, that practice this art, I cannot esteem it my own to dispose of, nor publish it without injury to them.”
Whether a work, entitledMidwife’s Practice, by Hugh Chamberlen, 1665, was by the translator of Mauriceau’s work, or by his father, must now remain a matter of doubt: it was, however, in all probability by the latter, from what the translator says in his preface, viz. “I designed a small manual to that purpose, but meeting some time after in France, with this treatise of Mauriceau, I changed my resolution into that of translating him.” On account of his being attached to the party of James II. he was again obliged to quit England, in 1688, and crossed over to Amsterdam, where he settled, and in five years after succeeded in selling his secret to three Dutch practitioners, viz. RogerRoonhuysen, Cornelius Bökelman, and Frederick Ruysch, the celebrated anatomist. In their hands, and in those of their successors, it remained a profound secret until 1753, when it was purchased by two Dutch physicians, Jacob de Visscher and Hugo van de Poll, for the purpose of making it generally known. It turned out to be a flat bar of iron, somewhat curved at each end: this lever was stated to have been received from Roonhuysen, one of the original purchasers of the Chamberlen secret; but there is no reason to suppose that any such instrument had been communicated by Chamberlen either to him or the others, as we have distinct evidence that both Ruysch and Bökelman possessedforceps, the blades of which united at their lower end by means of a hinge and pin. It is known also that Roonhuysen used a double instrument consisting of two blades. The above-mentioned flat bar of iron, commonly called Roonhuysen’s lever, was, without doubt, invented after his time, by Plaatman, who received the Chamberlen secret from him. (Edin. Med. and Surg. Journal, Oct., 1833.)
Chamberlen’s Forceps.
Not many years ago a collection of obstetric instruments were found at Woodham, Mortimer Hall, near Mildon, in Essex, which formerly belonged to Dr. Peter Chamberlen, who, having purchased this estate “some time previous to 1683,” was, in all probability, one of the brothers alluded to by Dr. Hugh Chamberlen, in his preface to the translation of Mauriceau’s work. This collection, (now in the possession of the Medico-Chirurgical Society, of London,) contains several forceps, two of which appear to have been used in actual practice: these differ from each other only in size, and present a great improvement upon the instrument possessed by Hugh Chamberlen, at Amsterdam. The blades are fenestrated and remarkably well formed: the locks are the same as of a common pair of scissors, except that in one case the pivot is riveted into one lock, which passes through a hole in the other when the blades are brought together. In the smaller forceps there is merely a hole in each lock through which a cord is passed, and then wound round the shanks of the blades to fasten them together, an improvement in which Dr. Peter Chamberlen had evidently anticipated Chapman, in making the first approach to the present English lock.
The earliest professors of the forceps, besides the Chamberlens, were Drinkwater, who commenced practice at Brentford, in 1668, and died in 1728; Giffard, who has given cases where he used his extractor as early as 1726; and Chapman, whopossessed a similar instrument about the same time. These forceps correspond very nearly with the above-mentioned ones of Dr. Peter Chamberlen; and as it is well known that from those of Giffard and Chapman, the forceps of the present day are descended, we cannot consider ourselves so much indebted to Dr. Hugh Chamberlen for these instruments, to which his bear so distant a resemblance, as to his relations, who, from living together in England, had doubtless assisted each other by their mutual inventions, and thus brought the instrument to that state of improvement in which it was found as above-mentioned.
For more detailed information respecting the history of the forceps we may refer our readers to Mulder’sHistoria Forcipum, &c., particularly, the German translation by Schlegel, to a similar work brought down to the present time, by Professor Edward von Siebold, to our own lectures on this subject, published in theLondon Med. and Surg. Journal, for March 28, 1835, vol. vii., and to the two papers already alluded to in theLondon Med. Gazette, Jan. 8, 1831, andEdinburgh Med. and Surg. Journal, October, 1833. [Also,Researches on Operative Midwifery, &c. ByFleetwood Churchill, M. D., essay iv. on the Forceps.Dublin, 1841.—Ed.]
TURNING.
Turning.—Indications.—Circumstances most favourable for this operation.—Rules for finding the feet.—Extraction with the feet foremost.—Turning with the nates foremost.—Turning with the head foremost.—History of turning.
Turning.—Indications.—Circumstances most favourable for this operation.—Rules for finding the feet.—Extraction with the feet foremost.—Turning with the nates foremost.—Turning with the head foremost.—History of turning.
Turning is that operation in midwifery where the feet, which had not presented at the time of labour, are artificially brought down into the os uteri and vagina, and in this manner the child delivered. (Naegelé,MS. Lectures.)
Besides turning with the feet foremost as now described it has also been proposed, as being safer for the child, to bring down the nates or the head, but these operations, especially the former, have scarcely ever been practised, and in most cases are impracticable.
Turning, in the strict sense of the word, is that operation, by which, without danger to the mother or her child, the position of the latter is changed, either for the purpose of rendering the labour more favourable, or for adapting the position of the child for delivering it artificially.
The delivery of the child with the feet foremost, by means of the hand alone, may be looked upon as a second stage of the operation; where, however, the turning has been undertaken on account of malposition of the child, it has been very properly recommended by Deleurye, (Traité des Accouchemens, 1770,) Boer, (Naturliche Geburtshülfe, 1810,) Wigand, (Geburt des Menschen, 1820,) and other high authorities in midwifery, that as the position is now converted into a natural one, (viz. of the feet,) it should be left as much as possible to the natural expelling powers; hence, therefore, under these circumstances, artificial extraction of the child with the feet foremost can scarcely be said to exist, the operation itself being confined to changing the position of the child.
Where, however, the circumstances of the case require that labour should be hastened in order to avert the impending danger, the extraction of the child with the feet foremost, by means of the hand alone, becomes a distinct operation.
The artificially changing the child’s position into a presentation of the feet is indicated in cases where, on account of malposition of the child, the labour cannot be completed, or at least without great difficulty.
Indications.The artificially delivering the child with the hand alone, or the extraction of it with the feet foremost (which of course presumes that it has presented with the feet, either originally or has been brought into that position by interference of art,) is indicated in all cases where the labour requires to be artificially terminated either on account of insufficiency of the expelling powers, or from the occurrence of dangerous symptoms. Under this head, on the part of the mother, are violent floodings, especially under certain circumstances, convulsions with total loss of consciousness, great debility, faintings, danger of suffocation from difficulty of breathing, violent and irrepressible vomiting, rupture of the uterus, death of the patient, &c.;—on the part of the child, prolapsus of the cord under certain circumstances. (Naegelé,Lehrbuch der Geburtshülfe, §§ 394, 395. 3d edit.) Hence, therefore, the general indications of turning are the same as those of the forceps, it being indicated in all those cases where nature is unable to expel the fœtus, or which demand a hasty delivery of the child, but which cannot be attained by the application of the forceps.
Turning is an operation which is far inferior to that of the forceps, both as regards the safety of the mother and her child, and also the ease with which it is performed. Whenever the circumstances under which it is undertaken are unfavourable, it not only becomes a very difficult operation, but also one of considerable danger: for the child especially is this the case, as the very circumstance of its being born with the feet foremost shows that it is necessarily exposed to the same dangers as those already mentioned in nates presentations, in addition to those of the first part of the operation, viz. the changing its position.
The most favourable moment for undertaking the operation of turning is when the os uteri is fully dilated and the membranes are still unruptured. In this state, the vagina and os uteri are most capable of admitting the hand, and the uterus, from being filled with liquor amnii, is prevented contracting upon the child, the position of which is changed with great ease and safety; but when the os uteri is only partially dilated, its edge thin and rigid, the membranes ruptured, and the liquor amnii drained off for some hours, it becomes a matter of great difficulty and danger either to introduce the hand into the uterus under such circumstances, or to attempt changing the child’s position: the os uteri tightly encircles the presenting part, and the uterus contracts upon the child itself so as to render it nearly, if not altogether immoveable.
The os uteri ought always if possible to be fully dilated: this however is not so essential as with the forceps, for when once ithas reached the size of a crown piece, it mostly yields easily to the introduction of the hand. Where turning is indicated in malposition of the child we may safely await its full dilatation so long as the membranes remain unruptured. Where the membranes have been ruptured some hours and the os uteri hard, thin, and rigid, it will be impossible to turn until, either spontaneously or by proper treatment, it becomes soft, cushiony, and dilatable.
In cases which require turning as a means of hastening labour, as for instance in flooding from placenta prævia and other causes, the hæmorrhage is seldom so severe as to demand it without at the same time rendering the os uteri so relaxed as to present little or no obstruction to the hand. Where convulsions indicate turning, the bleeding and other depleting measures, which are necessary to control them, will have a similar effect in preparing the os uteri for this purpose.
In ordinary cases of turning there will be no need to change the patient’s position, as it will be just as easy to perform it as she lies upon her left side, merely bringing her pelvis nearer to the side of the bed in order to reach her with greater facility. Where, however, from the position of the child or from the state of the uterus, the introduction of the hand and searching for the feet will probably be attended with considerable difficulty, it may be advisable to place her across the bed, sitting upon its edge, her back supported by pillows, her feet resting on two chairs, in the same way as it is used by the Continental practitioners for applying the forceps; or if it be really a case of very unusual difficulty, it will be better to put her upon her knees and elbows, for in this position we gain the upper and anterior parts of the uterus with greater ease.
In choosing which is the best hand for performing the operation, the practitioner must not only be guided by the position of the child, but also by the hand with which he possesses most strength and dexterity: many always use the left hand for turning when the patient lies upon her left side; for our own part we have always used the right, and have never failed except in one or two cases of great difficulty, where we judged it more prudent to put the patient on her knees and elbows than risk any injury by using too much force. In introducing the hand into the vagina as the patient lies on her left side, the right is moreover preferable, as we can pass it more completely in the axis of the vagina, than we can the left.[88]
The directions which are usually given to introduce one hand or the other according to the child’s position, are not practical,because cases occur where it is impossible to ascertain this point without passing the hand into the uterus, as in placenta prævia, and occasionally in shoulder presentations; and it would be by no means justifiable to make the patient undergo the suffering from a repetition of this operation, merely because the position of the child is such as is stated in books to require the left hand instead of the right.
Having evacuated the bladder and rectum, and greased the fore-arm and back of the hand, we should gently insinuate the four fingers, one after the other, into the os externum: the whole hand must be contracted into the form of a cone; the thumb will pass up easily along the palm; the passage of the knuckles is the most difficult, for as the os externum is the narrowest part of the vagina, and the hand is widest across the knuckles, it follows that this is the point of the greatest resistance and suffering, and that, when once this is overcome, our hand will advance with greater ease both to ourselves and to our patient. This part of the operation can scarcely be conducted too gradually or gently, for if we give the soft parts sufficient time to yield, it is scarcely credible what an extent of dilatation may be effected by a comparatively moderate degree of pain; the os externum is also the most sensitive part of the vagina, and serious nervous affections may even be provoked by the intolerable agony arising from a rude and hasty attempt to force the hand through it. We must not advance the hand merely by pushing it onwards, but endeavour to insinuate it by a writhing movement, alternately straightening and gently bending the knuckles, so as to make the vagina gradually ride over this projecting part as the hand advances.
In passing the os uteri the same precautions must be observed, particularly when the os uteri is not fully dilated; at the same time we must fix the uterus itself with the other hand, and rather press the fundus downwards against the hand which is now advancing through the os uteri. In every case of turning we should bear in mind the necessity of duly supporting the uterus with the other hand; for we thus not only enable the hand to pass the os uteri with greater ease, but we prevent in great measure the liability there must be to laceration of the vagina from the uterus, in all cases where the turning is at all difficult. “In those cases (says Professor Naegelé) where artificial dilatation of the os uteri is required to let the hand pass, it should be done in the following manner:—during an interval of the pains, we introduce, according to the degree of dilatation, first two, then three, and lastly four fingers; and by gently turning them and gradually expanding them we endeavour to dilate it sufficiently to let the hand pass. This must only be done under circumstances of absolute necessity and always with the greatest caution—in fact, only in those cases where the danger consequent upon artificial dilatation of the os uteri is evidently less than that, to avert, which we are compelled to turn before it issufficiently yielding or dilated.” (Lehrbuch der Geburtshülfe, p. 212. 3tte ausgabe.) This observation from so high an authority evidently applies to those cases where the os uteri is not only soft and yielding, but also nearly dilated; theforcibledilatation of the os uteri is justly deprecated by Madame la Chapelle: “I never attempt to produce this forced dilatation,not even in cases of hæmorrhage. But we may frequently promote the dilatation of the passages in a remarkable manner by moistening and relaxing them and diminishing their state of excitement, viz. by the steams of hot water, tepid injections, and more particularly by warm baths and bleeding.” (p. 49.) Her diagnosis of the condition in which the os uteri will yield to the introduction of the hand is well worthy of attention. “If the inactive uterus be unable to expel the child, or to make the head clear its orifice although considerably dilated, if, in this state of affairs, the membranes give way, we can feel the os uteri retract, from being no longer pressed upon. How different is this state of passive contraction to the rigidity of an orifice which has not yet been dilated: in this case, although the os uteri is contracted and even thick, it is soft, supple, and easily dilatable; there is no feeling of tightness or resistance; it is little else than a membranous sac, and the head has not descended sufficiently to press upon it; or if the head does not present, it is some part of the child, as for instance the shoulder, which is unable to advance and act upon the os uteri: in this case operate without fear—in the other wait.” (Pratique des Accouchemens, p. 86.)
If the membranes be not yet ruptured we should use the greatest caution to preserve them uninjured: the hand must be gently insinuated between them and the uterus, and should be passed either until the feet are felt, or at least, until it has gained the upper half of the uterus. Now, and not till now, ought they to be ruptured. As this is done at the side of the uterus little or no liquor amnii escapes, for the torn membranes are pressed closely against the uterine parietes, and the vagina is completely closed by the presence of the arm in it acting as a plug; the uterus is unable to contract upon the child on account of the fluid which surrounds it, and the hand, therefore, passes up with great facility. The uterus is not diminished by the loss of its liquor amnii; its contractile power is, therefore, not increased. When the hand has broken the membranes it can move about in perfect freedom: if the feet have not as yet been reached they will now be easily found, and the position of the child will be changed without difficulty.
The importance of passing in the hand without rupturing the membranes was first shown by Peu in 1694.[89]But it excitedlittle or no notice at the time, not even by La Motte, who paid so much attention to improving the operation of turning. Dr. Smellie appears to have been the first after Peu who recommended this mode of practice, although he makes no mention of his name. “Then introducing one hand into the vagina we insinuate it in a flattened form within the os internum, and push up between the membranes and the uterus as far as the middle of the womb: having thus obtained admission, we break the membranes by grasping and squeezing them with our fingers, slide our hand within them without moving the arm lower down, then turn and deliver as formerly directed.” (Treatise on the Theory and Practice of Midwifery, vol. i. p. 327. 4th edit.) In 1770, Deleurye again pointed out the value of this mode of introducing the hand, and expressly directs us “introduire la main dans la matricesanspercer la poche des eaux, détacher les membranes des parois de ce viscère, et les percer à l’endroit où l’on juge que les pieds peuvent le plus naturellement se trouver.”[90]Dr. Hamilton, of Edinburgh, five years afterwards recommended the same method, and in nearly the same terms. Little notice, however, has been taken of it since, either in this country or upon the Continent, and the old objectionable mode of rupturing the membranes at the os uteri is still taught even by the most modern authors. The celebrated Boer also added his testimony in favour of Deleurye’s mode of practice,[91]and it has still farther been confirmed by Professor Naegelé.
Turning under these circumstances is an easy operation, and a very different affair compared with its performance in cases in which the membranes have been some time previously ruptured, and the uterus drained of liquor amnii: the hand is passed up with difficulty, the feet are quickly found, and the child moved round with a degree of facility which is scarcely credible. Where, however, the uterus is irritable and closely contracted upon the child, the liquor amnii having long since escaped, where the os uteri is not more than two-thirds dilated, its edge thin, hard, and tight, as is especially seen in a neglected case of arm or shoulder presentation, every step of the operation is attended with thegreatest difficulty, and in fact is neither possible nor justifiable, until by bleeding to fainting, by the warm bath and opiates, we have succeeded in producing such a degree of relaxation as to enable us to introduce the hand. “Blood-letting is the only remedy with which we are acquainted that has any decided control over the contracted uterus. It is one almost certain of rendering turning practicable under such circumstances, if carried to the extent it should be. A small bleeding in such cases is of no possible advantage, for unless the practitioner means to carry the bleeding to its proper limits, which is a disposition to, or the actual state of syncope, he had better not employ it.” (Dewees’Compendious System of Midwifery, § 629.) “The vagina is never so soft, so dilatable, and capable of admitting the hand as during the presence of an active hæmorrhage, and this is equally the case in primiparæ as in those who have had several children: and it is a mistaken kindness in the medical attendant, who in order to spare his patient’s sufferings, under these circumstances delays to introduce his hand until the hæmorrhage shall have ceased. The moment this is the case, the vagina regains more vitality, sensibility and power of contraction, the hand now experiences much more opposition, and excites far greater pain than during the state of syncope.” (Wigand,Geburt des Menschen, vol. ii. p. 428.)
When once a powerful impression has been made upon the system by an active bleeding, opiates, which before it, would have only tended to render the patient feverish, are now of great value: they relax the spasmodic action of the uterus, allay the general excitement and irritability, and induce sleep and perspiration. As with bleeding in these cases, they must be given in decided doses: a grain of hydrochlorate of morphia given at once, or in two doses quickly repeated, and at the same time from half a drachm to a drachm of Liquor Opii Sedativus thrown into the rectum with a little thin starch or gruel, will rarely or never fail to produce the desired effect. The opiate by the mouth may be advantageously combined with James’s powder, and thus assist its diaphoretic action. The warm bath will also prove a valuable remedy.
“If the arm or funis of the child presents and is prolapsed into the vagina, we must not try to push back these parts into the uterus again, but we must endeavour to pass our hand along the inner surface of the presenting arm; or if it be the cord, we must guide it so as to press the cord as little as possible: if however a coil of it has passed out of the vagina and is still beating, we had better carry it upon the hand with which we are about to turn the child.” (Boer,op. cit.vol. iii. p. 5. 1817.) For farther information on this head we must refer to the observations onMalposition of the Child.
If the head or nates be occupying the brim of the pelvis it willbe necessary to raise them gently and press them to one side: this however is usually effected by the very act of passing up the hand, and seldom produces any difficulty, unless these parts have already advanced deeper into the pelvis; in which case, as turning under these circumstances can only be undertaken with a view to hasten labour, it will become a matter of consideration whether we shall not be able to attain this object better by the aid of the forceps.
Although it ought ever to be considered as a rule that turning must not be attempted whilst the pains are violent, the introduction of the hand into the uterus always excites it more or less to contraction: the degree of pressure and impediment which it will produce to the progress of the hand will in a great measure depend upon the quantity of liquor amnii which it contains. Where the uterus has been drained of the fluid, every contraction will be felt in its full force by the operator: his hand is firmly jammed against the child, and if it happens to be caught in a constrained posture at the moment, is liable to be attacked with a severe fit of cramp, which benumbs and renders it powerless. Wherever we find that the hand is tightly squeezed during a pain, we should lay it flat with the palm upon the child, and hold it perfectly still: in this posture it will bear a powerful contraction without inconveniencing ourselves or injuring the uterus; and by letting it be quite flaccid and motionless we shall not provoke the uterus to farther exertions. Attempting to turn during the pain would not only be useless, but we should exhaust the strength of our hand which cannot be spared too much; we should torture the patient unnecessarily, and run no small risk of rupturing the uterus.
In letting the pressure of our hand be upon the child during a pain, instead of against the uterus, we must select any part rather than its abdomen, for pressure here seems to act as injuriously as pressure upon the umbilical cord.
Rules for finding the feet.In searching for the feet we must endeavour to gain the anterior surface of the child, for (unless its position be greatly distorted) they are usually turned upon the abdomen: in arm presentations the position of the hand will also guide us, the palm of it being mostly turned in the same direction as the abdomen, and therefore points to the situation of the feet; the rule also, as above given by Boer, of passing the hand along the inside of the presenting arm, is well worthy of recollection, for this can scarcely fail to guide us to the anterior part of the child. Where, either from the pressure of the uterus or other circumstances, it is difficult to distinguish the precise position of the child, it will be better to follow Dr. Denman’s simple rule, that the hand “must be conducted into the uterus, on that side of the pelvis where it can be done with most convenience, because that will lead most easily to the feet of the child.” The softabdomen, the curved position of the child, and its extremities crossed in front are so many reasons why there should be more room in this direction.
During all this time the other hand placed externally will be of great service, not only in supporting the uterus, but in fixing the child and rendering the different parts of it more attainable. Where the feet are at some distance, we frequently come first to an arm or thigh, which soon leads us to the elbow or knee; if the introduction of the hand has been attended with some difficulty, it will not be very easy to distinguish these joints from each other, without bearing in mind the following diagnostic points:—the knee present two rounded prominences (condyles of the femur) with a depression between them, whereas, the elbow presents also two rounded prominences, but with a sharp projection (olecranon) between.
If the foot is not easily reached, there will be no need of forcing up the hand farther to gain it: it will be much better and safer to hook the finger into the bend of the knee and hold by it for a pain or two: this will generally be sufficient to bring it within reach; or during an interval of the pains, the leg may be gently disengaged and brought down. Not unfrequently we can only feel the toes with the extremities of our fingers, and therefore cannot maintain a sufficient hold upon the foot so as to bring it down: here again the same rule will be applicable, for by keeping but a slight hold upon it during a pain, it will be found to have approached nearer when the pain has gone off; in fact our first attempt to move the child must be done in this cautious manner, and we shall effect our object with greater certainty by merely holding the feet still during the pain, not allowing them to recede from that position in which we had placed them during the intervals, than by using considerable efforts to bring them to the os uteri. By the time we have got one foot fairly within grasp, the other is seldom very distant and should always be brought down if possible: by bringing down both feet we cause the hips of the child to enter the brim of the pelvis more equally; whereas, if one leg only is brought down, the pelvis of the child comes more or less awry, and the ischium of the other side is apt to lodge against the brim of its mother’s pelvis.[92]This practice has been recommended on the grounds that, by bring down only one leg, we make the presentation rather resemble a breech case, which is known to be more favourable for reasons already mentioned, and that by having the other leg turned upon the abdomen it will protect the cord from undue pressure. As far as the abdomen is concerned this may possibly be the case, but the pressure of the head upon the cord, which is the real source of danger to the child in turning, can in no wise be influenced by this position.
In bringing down the feet it must be done with the articulation, that is, the child must be turned forwards; at the same time the hand upon the abdomen, externally, will be of great service in assisting us to move the child, and in preventing the change of its position from taking place in too sudden and violent a manner, a circumstance which is apt to paralyze the uterus considerably, and even produce alarming symptoms from the shock it occasions.
Extraction.When once we have brought the feet into the vagina, the first part of the operation, viz. the changing the position of the child, is completed: it has now become a presentation of the feet, and as such ought to be treated, unless some source of danger be present which requires that the delivery should be hastened. The value of this practice in footling cases was first pointed out by Deleurye,[93]and particularly applied to the second act of turning by Wigand. “I have made it,” says he, “a strict rule in turning, from the moment that I have brought a foot of the child as far into the vagina as I can without force, to do nothing beyond patiently waiting for the return of the pains, even if this did not take place for many hours, and leaving the rest of the labour entirely to nature. I have found by doing so that when the pains at length began to expel the child, they did it with so much force and activity as was not even seen in the most natural case of head presentation.” (Geburt des Menschen, vol. ii. p. 130.)
As the feet descend towards the os uteri, the presenting part, particularly if the arm has been prolapsed into the vagina, begins to recede, the hand externally will assist in moving the child round, and we should perform this step of the operation so gradually as to be assured that the presenting part has quitted the pelvis before the feet have entered. Without attention to this point, the child may easily be fixed across the upper part of the pelvis, or even the body brought down, while the head is wedged into the cavitas iliaca of the ilium, and produce a serious obstacle to its farther advance. This is a sort of mishap which can rarely happen except to young practitioners. If the process be slowly and carefully conducted, we doubt much if it be ever necessary to disengage the presenting part as has been so frequently recommended: the uterus in fact will move the child round with very little assistance on our part, and we shall find that after every pain the advance of the feet and recession of the part has increased considerably. From our own observations we would say that in all difficult cases, of turning especially, it is desirable for the patient to have several pains between the moment of gainingthe feet and bringing them fairly into the vagina: very little force is required to bring them down, and the uterus does not appear to suffer; but where the position of the child has been rapidly changed, its contractile power seems to be injured, and it is ill able to make those exertions during the last stage, which will be required of it in order to save the child’s life.
Not less necessary is it that we should proceed with the second stage as cautiously as possible: the grand principle is the same, viz. to conduct the expulsion as gradually as possible: there is no use whatever in hurrying this part of the operation, for if the child be alive, we place it in imminent danger of its life; and if it be dead, as will easily be known by the cord not pulsating, we are putting the mother to a great deal of suffering for no reason. Now that it has become a footling case, it must be managed according to rules already given for this species of presentation: the uterus must be emptied as slowly as possible, the anterior part of the child must be directed more or less backward, and the funis guided into the vicinity of one or other sacro-iliac synchondroses. By retarding the advance of the child, we resist the action of the uterus somewhat, and thus excite it to contract more actively, the head enters the pelvis in the most favourable position, and as the pains are still brisk, it passes through so quickly as to subject the child to little or no danger by pressing upon the cord. Where however the passage of the head through the pelvis threatens to be delayed, we would strongly recommend the application of the forceps in order to terminate the delivery before the child has begun to suffer: it is to this mode of practice that Professor Busch, of Berlin, attributes the extraordinary success of turning in his hands; of forty-four cases where turning was deemed necessary only three children are stated to have lost their lives from the effects of the operation, a result which is by far the most favourable known.
Turning with the nates foremost.It has been proposed by several authors of the last century to turn the child with the breech foremost, as being a less dangerous operation for it than the common one of bringing down the feet. Levret has distinctly proposed this mode (L’Art des Accouchemens, § 767,) and Smellie on more than one occasion has alluded to bringing down the nates. Dr. W. Hunter has also recommended turning with the breech foremost: still more recently has this mode of practice been confirmed by W. J. Schmitt, of Vienna,[94]also by some other continental authors; but the difficulty in bringing down a part of the child’s body, upon which we can exert so little hold, will always be very considerable, wherever the circumstances under which the operation is undertaken is at all unfavourable.Schmitt recommends that as soon as we reach the nates we should apply the hand flat upon them; while in order to turn the child, active pressure is kept up from without by the other hand: when once we have succeeded in moving the breech somewhat downwards, its farther descent is very easy.
A still more recent modification of turning the child in arm and shoulder presentations has been proposed by Dr. v. Deutsch, of Dorpat: it consists in raising the presenting part, and at the same time turning the child upon its long axis, as the hand placed in the axilla carries the shoulder to the upper parts of the uterus, after which, as the hand descends, it brings the feet along with it into the vagina.
Turning with the head foremost.In former times, as the head was considered the only natural presentation of the child, every deviation of its position from this was looked upon as unnatural, and, therefore, the operation of turning only applied to bringing down the head, which had not presented: as, however, the difficulties already mentioned, in turning with the nates, would apply still more forcibly to bringing down the head, it is plain that this mode of turning would rarely be practicable. “Were it practicable at all times,” says Dr. Smellie, vol. i. book iii. chap. iv. sect. iv. number v., “to bring the head into the right position, a great deal of fatigue would be saved to the operator, much pain to the woman, and imminent danger to the child: he, therefore, ought to attempt this method, and may succeed when he is called before the membranes are broke, and feels by the touch that the face, ear, or any of the upper parts present.” Still, however, he confesses that the usual method of turning by the feet is the safest. In his first volume of cases, (collection 16, number 6, case 5,) he has given a description of this mode of turning. Dr. Spence also turned with the head foremost, as is shown by his thirty-second case, where the hand and cord were prolapsed into the vagina. “I introduced my hand into the vagina, and in the intervals between the pains reduced both the arm and the cord: but as I found they were like to return again upon my withdrawing my hand, I therefore continued to support them till such time as, by the strength of the pains, the child’s head was so far forced down as to prevent any danger of their returning, the happy consequence of which, was, that she was delivered of a live child in about half an hour after: both mother and child did well.” (Spence’sSystem of Midwifery, p. 465.) Dr. Merriman has recorded a similar case in his own practice: “The arm was returned at two o’clock; there was afterwards no occurrence of pain till six, after which, they became very strong, and between eight and nine the child was born. This was the only infant that Mrs. R. has seen alive out of six.” (Synopsis of Difficult Parturition, 1838, p. 250.) Still more recently turning with the head foremost has been tried byDr. Michaelis, of Kiel, (Neue Zeitschrift für Geburtskunde, vol. iv. 1836.) When once the faulty position has been altered, the liquor amnii is allowed to drain off, the uterus contracts and presses the head down into the pelvis, and the child is born without farther difficulty.
History of turning.Turning, as it is generally practised at the present day, viz. changing the position of a living child so that the feet are brought down foremost into the vagina, was unknown to the ancients. There is little doubt, however, that if they could have been induced to have looked upon presentations of the nates and feet as natural labours, they would have been in possession of this valuable means of effecting artificial delivery; as it is, we meet with detached allusions to it in their writings, although applying only to cases where the child is dead. In the writings of Aspasia and Philumenus, which, but for the quotations of Œtius, would have been entirely lost to us, we find directions for turning the child. Thus, Philumenus states, “Si caput fœtûs locum obstruxerit ita ut prodire nequeat infans in pedes vertatur atque educatur.” At a still later period, Celsus gave similar directions, but to all appearance they also merely apply to a dead child. “Medici vero propositum est, ut infantem manu dirigat, vel in caput vel etiam in pedes si forte aliter compositus est;” and again he says, “Sed in pedes quoque conversus infans, non difficulter extrahitur. Quibus apprehensis per ipsas manus commode educitur.” (Celsus,de Medicinâ, lib. vii. cap. 29.)
From this time the whole subject seemed to sink into oblivion, until Pierre Franco, in his work on surgery[95]proposed the extraction of the child with the feet foremost: this was put into practice by the celebrated French surgeon, Ambrose Paré, (Ambr. Paræus,Opera Chirurgia, 1594,) who, nevertheless, recommended turning with the head foremost, where it was possible. His work was afterwards translated into Latin by Guillemeau, who, although he still adhered to the old plan of bringing down the head, showed the value of Paré’s mode of turning in hæmorrhages and convulsions. To Francis Mauriceau, a man of great learning and experience, we are indebted for this operation being greatly improved, by means of his valuable work, in 1668; but it is Philip Peu, in 1694, and William Manquest de la Motte, in 1721, to whom the merit is due of having pointed out the value of two great laws in turning—the one of not rupturing the membranes as already mentioned, the other of not attempting to push back the arm which presents.[96]