PubMed · 9259869
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
G Vandenbroucke. 1997. Spinal anesthesia: some considerations.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9259869/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Albert Woolley and Cecil Roe were healthy, middle-aged men who became paraplegic after spinal anaesthesia for minor surgery at the Chesterfield Royal Hospital in 1947. The spinal anaesthetics were given by the same anaesthetist, Dr Malcolm Graham, using the same drug on the same day at the same hospital. The outcome for the patients and their families was devastating, as it was for the use of spinal anaesthesia in the UK. At the trial 6 yr later, and against the opinion of leading neurologists, the judge accepted Professor Macintosh's suggestion that phenol, in which the ampoules of local anaesthetic had been immersed, had contaminated the local anaesthetic through invisible cracks. In an interview 30 yr after the verdict, Dr Graham believed tha the tragedy was caused by contamination of the spinal needles or syringes during the sterilization process. The subsequent explanation that, on the day in question, descaling liquid in the sterilizing pan had not been replaced by water, supported his belief and finally offered a credible explanation. We review the Woolley and Roe case, the status of spinal anaesthesia before and after 1947, and the relevant medico-legal judgments in claims for negligence in the early days of the National Health Service.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.