Was just reading on pre 20th century amputations and how they strived to be as fast as possible, cutting through bone and all.
Why didn’t they just amputate at the joint, like a butcher cuts pork or beef? That would have been way faster than sawing off though bone.
In: 8
They need to leave enough skin to cover the stump and also if possible connect the arteries to the veins to maintain a good blood supply. And try to avoid nerve clusters so as not to leave the patient begging for death if they survive the Op. It was hellish and if you watch some detailed and demonstrative videos, of the kind youtube no longer allows, you’ll understand why some people chose death rather than amputation, and why a surgeon with a good tourne-de-maestro was worth paying for.
Latest Answers