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
Whilst I’m not a pre 20th century butcher I’d imagine a number of reasons.
1st bleeding
If you want to hack off a limb, you have to cut off the blood supply first, otherwise your patient is going to bleed to death. That has to be done above the point where you’re cutting. If you do it above the joint, you’re cutting blood supply off to the upper bone as well as the lower bone that you’re amputating
2nd infection
When bones get infected, the infection spreads throughout the bone. If you amputate at a joint and infect the upper bone during the operation, then your patient will need a second amputation before long.
3rd prosthetics and mobility
If you amputate at the joint, you lose all function of that joint. If you amputate below, then you retain the ability to bend the stump. You can also add on a wooden peg and retain some function of the missing limb.
Latest Answers