Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-23T21:49:52.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Surgical Uncertainties of Prefrontal Topectomy and Leucotomy (Observations on 100 Cases)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

J. Le Beau
J. Le Beau*
Affiliation:
107 rue de l'Universite, Paris, France
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Three is no branch of neuro-surgery in which the assessment of results is more difficult than in psycho-surgery. The main sources of uncertainty are:

  1. (a) Mental impairment or improvement cannot yet be measured as precisely as neurological disorders, such as visual field or motor defects.

  2. (b) Spontaneous recovery and the influence of the incidental psychotherapy and drugs involved in any form of surgical attention cannot be evaluated with certainty in many cases.

  3. (c) Most of the cytoarchitectural fields of the frontal cortex cannot yet be defined during life by any physiological test or anatomical measurement.

  4. (d) Finally, from a technical point of view the surgeon is liable to produce many incidental lesions which cannot be ascertained during the patient's life.

Type
Part I.—Original Articles
Information
Journal of Mental Science , Volume 97 , Issue 408 , July 1951 , pp. 480 - 504
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1951 

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

Bailey, P., Revue Neur., 1950, 82, 3–20.Google Scholar
Beck, E., McLardy, T., and Meyer, A., J. Ment. Sci., 1950, 96, 157–167.Google Scholar
Clark, W. E., Le Gros, , Lancet, 1948, i, 353–356.Google Scholar
Iidem, in Perspectives in Neuropsychiatry, 1950, ed. Derek Richter, . London : H. K. Lewis & Co.Google Scholar
Dax, E. G., Reitman, F., and Radley-Smith, E. J., Digest Neurol. Psychiat., 1948, 16, 553.Google Scholar
Dempsey, E. W., and Morison, R. S., Amer. J. Physiol., 1942, 135, 293–300.Google Scholar
Eysenck, H. J., Dimensions of Personality, 1948. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd.Google Scholar
Fiamberti, A. M., Libraria Luso-Espanhola, 1949, p. 329.Google Scholar
Foerster, O., and Gagel, O., Z. Ges. Neurol. Psychiatr., 1933, 149, 312–344.Google Scholar
Freeman, W., Lancet, 1948, 371–379.Google Scholar
Idem and Watts, J. W., Psychosurgery, 1942. Springfield, Ill. : Ch. C. Thomas. Halstead, W. C., Brain and Intelligence, 1949. Chicago : The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Heath, R. G., and Pool, J. L., J. Nerv. and Ment. Dis., 1948, 107, 411–429.Google Scholar
Jasper, H. H., E.E.G. Clin. Neurophysiol., 1949, 1, 405–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Idem and Droogleever-Fortuyn, J., Res. Publ. Ass. nerv. ment. Dis., 1947, 26, 272–298.Google Scholar
Jefferson, G., Glas. Med. J., 1942, 20, 77–96.Google Scholar
Le Beau, J., Rev. Canad. de Biol., 1942, 2, 134–156.Google Scholar
Idem., ibid., 1948a, 7, 254–272.Google Scholar
Idem, Sem. des H⊚p. de Paris, 1948 6, 24, 1937–1952.Google Scholar
Idem, J. Neuro-Surg., 1950, 6, 79–91.Google Scholar
Idem and Pecker, J., Sem. des H⊚p. de Paris, 1950a, 26, 1536–1551.Google Scholar
Iidem, Presse Méd., 1950 b, 58, 777–778.Google Scholar
Lyerly, J. G., South. Med. Surg., 1944, 106–124.Google Scholar
Mahoudeau, D., Le Beau, J., and Lemperiere, Mlle., Rev. Neur., 1949, 81, 1037.Google Scholar
McKissock, W., Brit. Med. J., ii, 84.Google Scholar
McLardy, T., J. Neurol., Neurosurg. and Psychiat., 1950, 13, 106–114.Google Scholar
Idem and Meyer, A., J. Ment. Sci., 1949, 95, 182–196.Google Scholar
Meyer, A., Congrés International de Psychiatrie, 1950, 3, 107–146. Paris : Hermann et Cie.Google Scholar
Idem and McLardy, T., J. Ment. Sci., 1949, 95, 403–417.Google Scholar
Moruzzi, G., and Magoun, H. W., E.E.G. Clin. Neurophysiol., 1949, 1, 455–473.Google Scholar
Murphy, J. P., and Gellhorn, E., J. Neurophysiol., 1945a, 8, 341–348.Google Scholar
Iidem, ibid., 1945 6, 8, 431–448.Google Scholar
Penfield, W., and Jasper, H. H., Res. Publ. Ass. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 1946, 26, 252–272.Google Scholar
Petrie, A., Brit. J. Med. Psychol., 1949, 22, 200–207.Google Scholar
Pool, J. L., in Problems of the Human Frontal Lobe, 1949a, 517 pp., Section I, Chap. 4, F. Mettler, Ed. New York : Paul B. Hoeber, Inc.Google Scholar
Idem, Heath, R., and Weber, J., Bull. New York Acad. Med., 1949b, 25, 335–344.Google Scholar
Poppen, J. C., J. Neurosurg., 1948, 5, 514–520.Google Scholar
Rylander, G., Acta psych. neurol., Copenhagen, Supplt. No. 20, 1939, 327 pp.Google Scholar
Idem, Res. Publ. Ass Nerv. Ment. Dis., 1947, 27, 691–705.Google Scholar
Scoville, W. B., J. Neurosurg., 1949, 6, 65–74.Google Scholar
Spiegel, E. A., Wycis, H. T., Marks, M., and Lee, A. J., Science, 1947, 106, 349–350.Google Scholar
Vincent, Cl., Rev. Neur., 1935, 64, 544–546.Google Scholar
Idem, Mem. Acad. Chir., 1937, 63, Nos. 8–10.Google Scholar
Idem, Guillaumat, L., and Le Beau, J., Bull. et Mém. Soc. Méd. H⊚p. Paris, 1937, 53, 1148–1165.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.