Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T17:42:18.470Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Personality Changes After Rostral Leucotomy: a Comparison with Standard Prefrontal Leucotomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

John Pippard
John Pippard*
Affiliation:
Claybury Hospital, Woodford Bridge, Essex
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“Standard” leucotomy in the plane of the coronal suture is undoubtedly an effective treatment for many cases of otherwise hopeless prognosis. The main objection to its use, resulting in many “modified” operations being devised, has been the occurrence of serious personality deficits afterwards. Ström-Olsen and Tow (1949) found that these handicapped nearly three-quarters of patients with “severe neurotic depression, obsessive-compulsive neurosis and chronic tense hypochondriasis”, and though 76 per cent. were relieved of illness only 8 per cent. were in full employment. Tow (1952) has repeated his concern at the serious damage inflicted on well-preserved personalities. Partridge (1950), who has given a full account of the personality changes after McKissock's (1943) “standard” leucotomy, detected some personality deficit in nearly every case of the 300 he investigated and suspected that intellectual impairment was present in all, though he could only be sure of it in a proportion. I have elsewhere (Pippard, 1955) reported the clinical results in 240 cases followed up 1½ to 5 years after rostral leucotomy by Mr. McKissock and this paper should be consulted for details of the operative techniques and scales used for rating the results.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Journal of Mental Science , Volume 101 , Issue 425 , October 1955 , pp. 774 - 787
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1955 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brain, R., Proc. R. Soc. Med., 1954, 47, 288–290.Google Scholar
Frankl, L., and Mayer-Gross, W., Lancet, 1947, ii, 820–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, W., and Watts, J. W., Psychosurgery. Intelligence, emotion and social behavior following prefrontal lobotomy for mental disorders, 1942. Springfield. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janis, I. L., J. nerv. ment. Dis., 1950, 111, 359–382.Google Scholar
Lancet, 1952, i, 407.Google Scholar
Lowinger, L., and Huddleson, J. H., Amer. J. Psychiat., 1946, 102, 594–598.Google Scholar
McKissock, W., J. Ment. Sci., 1943, 89, 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, A., and Beck, E., Prefrontal leucotomy and related operations: anatomical aspects of success and failure, 1954. Edinburgh. Google Scholar
Michael, S. T., Arch. Neurol. Psychiat., Chicago, 1954, 71, 362–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partridge, M., Prefrontal leucotomy. A survey of 300 cases personally followed over 1½ to 3 years, 1950. Oxford. Google Scholar
Pippard, J. S., J. Ment. Sci., 1955, 101, 756.Google Scholar
Sargant, W., and Slater, E., An introduction to physical methods of treatment in psychiatry, 1954. Edinburgh. Google Scholar
Ström-Olsen, R., and Tow, P. M., Lancet, 1949, i, 87–90.Google Scholar
Tow, P. M., Lancet, 1952, ii, 253–255.Google Scholar
Zubin, J., J. Person., 1948, 17, 33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.