PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 9623318

[Development of peripheral nerve surgery].

Abstract

In the submitted review the author deals with the development of peripheral nerve surgery (PN) from ancient times to the present time incl. hithero unpublished details. He analyses in great detail the period of the last 40 years which is divided into three stages--the mechanical, biological period and the period of neurotrophism. From the Second World War to the sixties the period bears the term mechanical. The results of reinnervation during this period were not satisfactory as the nerves were connected without the use of a microscope, in major defects they were connected under considerable traction and the only criterion was the resistance against dehiscence. Significant improvement of results of regeneration of PN was recorded during the biological period. Mechanical ideas were overcome and biological and physiological reactions of the peripheral nerves were taken into account. Suture of nerves under traction was refuted and into clinical practice the surgical microscope, microsurgical technique and microsurgical autotransplantation with a nervous graft were introduced. The anatomical structure of the nerve with a plexiform pattern of the fascicles became however the limitation of surgical methods. After discovery of NGF (nerve growth factor) we can speak of the onset of a new period, neurotrophism. In laboratory experiments many substances are studied and theoretically new non-surgical possibilities how to promote regeneration lie ahead. However they cannot be applied yet in clinical practice. In injuries of peripheral nerves the only correct reconstruction method is still microsuture of the nerve and in case of losses microsurgical autotransplantation using a nerve graft.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M Sames. 1998. [Development of peripheral nerve surgery].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9623318/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Kant on the history of nature: the ambiguous heritage of the critical philosophy for natural history.

This paper seeks to show Kant's importance for the formal distinction between descriptive natural history and a developmental history of nature that entered natural history discussions in the late eighteenth century. It is argued that he developed this distinction initially upon Buffon's distinctions of 'abstract' and 'physical' truths, and applied these initially in his distinction of 'varieties' from 'races' in anthropology. In the 1770s, Kant appears to have given theoretical preference to the 'history' of nature [Naturgeschichte] over 'description' of nature [Naturbeschreibung]. Following Kant's confrontations with Johann Herder and Georg Forster in the late 1780s, Kant weakened the epistemic status of the 'history of nature' and gave theoretical preference to 'description of nature'. As a result, Kant's successors, such as Goethe, could draw from Kant either a justification for a developmental history of nature, or, as this paper argues, a warrant from the critical philosophy for denying the validity of the developmental history of nature as anything more than a 'regulative' idea of reason.

History, 18th Century↗

Psychophysics, intensive magnitudes, and the psychometricians' fallacy.

As an aspiring science in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, psychology pursued quantification. A problem was that degrees of psychological attributes (most importantly, then, intensities of sensations) were experienced only as greater than, less than, or equal to one another. They were categorised as intensive magnitudes. The meaning of this concept was shifting, from that of an attribute possessing underlying quantitative structure (the medieval and Kantian meaning) to that of a merely ordinal attribute (its dominant twentieth-century meaning). This fluidity allowed psychologists to claim that their attributes were intensive magnitudes (because ordered) and measurable (because intensive magnitudes). This claim was supported by an argument that order entails quantity. As adapted by psychometricians, the argument was that if an attribute is ordered, then the differences between its degrees are quantitative and, therefore, measurable. However, in a paper ignored in psychology for six decades, the issue was resolved mathematically and the resolution implies that the psychometricians' argument was fallacious.

History, 18th Century↗