- Email: [email protected]
Cleft palate surgery
CURRENT
Cleft Palate Surgery. Association,
LZTEZSATU
F:tlitorial. Thtl Journal Yovcmber 15, 1924, xvii, 11.
of the Indiana
St-ate >Iedic:rl
A few years a,go, the disappointing results which followed cleft palate operations were the rule rather than the exception. It is evident that such intervention should be left to the special operator, who is the better judge of bot.h operability and technic In the report of the Minneapolis Surgical Society on this subject, made in December, 1923, the members were very pessimistic as to the outlook for this operation. Brophy, one of the leading aut,horit,ic>s in this form of surgical intcrvention. advocates early operation, not only as promising more beneficial results than later intervention, but as more conservative and as making possible better technic. Since one of t,he principal objraets is to prevent the characteristic speech troubles, this aim is forfeited by waiting until the speech defects have become permanent. In fact successful outcome of the operation is judged first of all by the character of the cuunciation, and this alone makes it neeessarp to operate in infancy. The aim of the technic is to establish a normal maxillary arch, which means that all soft parts must be held out of the way and the bony segments freshened up, approximat,ed and immobilized. The: compact bone is removed and t,he surfaces approximated are of premaxillary cancellous osseous Cssuc. It is unsurgical to divide the vomcr and move the is thrrcby produced. The wires prcmaxillae out of t,he wa.y, for no a~-ch should not pass through the premaxillatt but. anttrior to them, beneath thr soft. parts. Unless the entire manual is observed, poor results may be anticiltatcd. If a bad result follow a perfect. operat,ion it may mean that aftertreatment has been faulty. Ownsrrrhip of I%&w and P&&es. to December, 1924, i, 2.
Kotc in the Radiologiest
Review,
November
The footnot)e on editorial page forty-t,hretl of the above-mentioned issue is really an abstract from the Journal of the American Medical Association for June 21 of last year, of an article by J. T. Case and while evidently written for the medical profession doubtless applies equally to the dtsntists. To begin “Hii
Cleft Palate Surgery. Association,
LZTEZSATU
F:tlitorial. Thtl Journal Yovcmber 15, 1924, xvii, 11.
of the Indiana
St-ate >Iedic:rl
A few years a,go, the disappointing results which followed cleft palate operations were the rule rather than the exception. It is evident that such intervention should be left to the special operator, who is the better judge of bot.h operability and technic In the report of the Minneapolis Surgical Society on this subject, made in December, 1923, the members were very pessimistic as to the outlook for this operation. Brophy, one of the leading aut,horit,ic>s in this form of surgical intcrvention. advocates early operation, not only as promising more beneficial results than later intervention, but as more conservative and as making possible better technic. Since one of t,he principal objraets is to prevent the characteristic speech troubles, this aim is forfeited by waiting until the speech defects have become permanent. In fact successful outcome of the operation is judged first of all by the character of the cuunciation, and this alone makes it neeessarp to operate in infancy. The aim of the technic is to establish a normal maxillary arch, which means that all soft parts must be held out of the way and the bony segments freshened up, approximat,ed and immobilized. The: compact bone is removed and t,he surfaces approximated are of premaxillary cancellous osseous Cssuc. It is unsurgical to divide the vomcr and move the is thrrcby produced. The wires prcmaxillae out of t,he wa.y, for no a~-ch should not pass through the premaxillatt but. anttrior to them, beneath thr soft. parts. Unless the entire manual is observed, poor results may be anticiltatcd. If a bad result follow a perfect. operat,ion it may mean that aftertreatment has been faulty. Ownsrrrhip of I%&w and P&&es. to December, 1924, i, 2.
Kotc in the Radiologiest
Review,
November
The footnot)e on editorial page forty-t,hretl of the above-mentioned issue is really an abstract from the Journal of the American Medical Association for June 21 of last year, of an article by J. T. Case and while evidently written for the medical profession doubtless applies equally to the dtsntists. To begin “Hii