Antall József szerk.: Orvostörténeti közlemények 89-91. (Budapest, 1980)

KISEBB KÖZLEMÉNYEK - ELŐADÁSOK - Benedek Jaszmann, László: Hendrik van Deventer (1651—1724) a németalföldi szülészet alapvetője (angol nyelven)

general contraction, but he made the first study of its deformities. The importance of the bony pelvis as factor in a delayed and difficult labor was almost universally neglected, so much so that when he focused his attention in this direction, he did almost apologetically. In the older text books we could find only a description, called: "The head which is not engaged because of the obliquely lying womb." Thus before his time was the importance of the bony birth canal not yet known. Even he did his discovery with hesitance. 2. His teaching methods and theories were not accepted without criticism. 3. He stressed first the difference between the normal and abnormal (pathological) deliveries. 4. He considered first the possibility of brain injury to the newborn, noted elongatic of the fetal head in cases of general contracted pelvis. 5. He was aware of the importance of the axis of the birth canal and described it accurately. 6. An important finding was the recognizing of the importance between the birth canal and the fetus (today called "discrepancy"). 7. Paying 30 pages for the vaginal examination, he drew the attention to dilatation of the cervix and the position of the head or recognizing another part of the fetus in the inlet of the pelvis. 8. In contrast to Mauriceau's work (Fig. 2.), he illustrated all his drawings: the fetus in the womb and its position to the bony pelvis (Fig. 3-4). 9. With Mauriceau he was a supporter of version-extraction, but he was the first who clearly explained which hand has to be used at the operation. 10. He mentioned first the dangerous significance of the prolapsed cord and he was already familiar with the today called "Trendelenburg's" position. I have only mentioned few important new obstetrical concepts of the famous Dutch obsterician. We have also discussed his errors in his work. First, he described the bony birth canal and the importance of the head that has passed through and stressed the engagement of the baby's head in the bony inlet. A narrow inlet hinders the passage of the head, so the womb will take an oblique position. That was what he actually said. On the other hand he mentioned the "obliquely lying womb" as a different pathological case, where the missing engagement of the head was thought to the "oblique lying cervix" turning the head in a wrong position, out of the axis of the birth canal. He has just borrowed the conception of his contemporary collègues as a case of obstruction of the labor progress. Why did he finally miss the clue of his genious originally made statement ? Why could not he realize that these two pathological conditions were the same? It is to us an unexplained fact how it could it have happened that this very experienced obstetrician, clearly explained all the important basic of obstetrical principles, writing about the "obliquely lying womb" and yet making a mistake. He was so near to the truth as accepted today. Fasbender (1964) writes a very appropriate remark on the work and life of van Deventer: "Bei keiner anderen hervorragenden Persönlichkeit in der Geschichte der Geburtshülfe, dürften Licht und Schatten, so unvereinbar nebeneinander hervortreten wie bei Hendrik van Deventer"

. There are few theories of his "misser". As an excuse we could perhaps use one of the wise words of Virchow: "Historische Gerechtigkeit besteht darin, das man jede Arbeit im Lichte ihrer Zeit betrachtet".