Antall József szerk.: Orvostörténeti közlemények 60-61. (Budapest, 1971)
KISEBB KÖZLEMÉNYEK — ELŐADÁSOK - Kótay Pál: Százéves a vesesebészet (angol nyelven)
he could read only about certain operations performed in the depths of despair,when—during the lancing of the pararenal abscesses, ready to break through — the calculi having eventually reached the abscess cavity were equally removed. According to Celsus, all injuries affecting the kidney are necessarily fatal. Then, during many centuries the dominant opinion was that the renal diseases may not be treated surgically, that the renal parenchyma may not be slit up and that the kidney can't be removed. They argued that the injuries of the kidney are fatal and that any attempt aimed at operating the kidney is beyond the bounds of the possible. Probably, he may have read something about a few accidental and unverifiable operations; thus, in 3474 the medical faculty of the University of Paris requested Charles VIII to spare the life of an archer who was sentenced to death and was suffering since many years of nephrolithiasis, provided that the man agrees to the exploration and removal of his diseased kidney. Supposedly, the intervention was a success and the archer survived. As far as we know, the case had no effect on the development of surgery. According to the recommendation of François Rousset, a seventeenth century French physician, the exploration of the kidney should be performed in the same way as the cesarean section, the removal of the stones being effected in this split-up position. But in those days this recommendation amounted to blasphemy and remained a mere theory. At the end of the eighteenth century, Hobson—the English consul in Venice— was suffering from a severe nephrolithiasis. He requested Dominicus Marchetti, the Paduan surgeon —one of the greatest masters of his age—to operate and free him from his unbearable sufferings. The surgeon was reluctant to operate him, because this might have cost the consul's life. But having exhausted all his energies and patience, the diplomat preferred an early death, instead of the excruciating life to which he was subjected. Finally, Marchetti gave in and complied with the consul's request. Nevertheless, during the operation a strong haemorrhage has set in, which made him to loose his courage. As a result, he discontinued the operation and dressed the wound. The next day, the patient was again suffering from violent pains and, therefore, requested him to proceed with the operation. This time he succeeded to get as far as the kidney. He slit it up and removed a few stones. The pains have ceased, but a fistula remained, to which the patient resigned himself quite willingly after the terrible pains he had to endure. There was a time when people gave credence to this story, while others doubted it. Even if it had actually happened, the operation had no effect either on the development of the surgery of that era or on its further progress during the following two centuries. Later on Gustav Simon has learned that —in the sixties of the last century— nephrectomies have already been performed in three other instances. However,in none of these cases did the surgeons actually contemplate an operation on the kidney. What they really suspected was a tumor, primarily an ovarian tumor. These accidental operations ended in death. The professor has made two more desperate attempts on his patient. He believed that he may put an end to the activity of the functioning, fistulous left
