The genuine works of Hippocrates, Vol. 1 · Hippocrates
[773] IV., 5, 3, 1.
Hippocrat. iii., p. 170.) Our author, in the latter part of this paragraph, mentions cursorily injury of the skull at a suture, and more circumstantially in the twelfth paragraph. This accident is very correctly described by the later writers, under the name of _diastasis_. See Heliodorus (ap. Chirurg. Veteres, p. 100), and Archigenes (ibid., p. 117). Pott declares that he did not remember having ever seen a single instance of recovery when there was separation of the bones at a suture. Morgagni, in like manner, represents the case as being of a particularly serious character. (De Caus. et Sed. Morb.) I once saw a strongly marked case in which there was a considerable separation of the bones at the upper part of the temporal suture, along with an extensive wound, unguardedly inflicted by the scalpel of a juvenile surgeon, in order to explore the nature of the accident. As might have been expected, under these circumstances, the case had a fatal issue. Mr. Guthrie writes thus of _diastasis_: “It is well known, that when a violent shock has been received on the head, particularly by a fall on the vertex, the sutures are often separated to a considerable extent; _these cases usually terminate fatally_.” (p. 135.) [785] The meaning here is somewhat obscure, but as Arantius states in his commentary on this tract, our author probably means that a fissure is necessarily complicated with a contusion, or, in other words, that there can be no fissure without contusion.
This second trepan proved very apropos, for it allowed the escape of pus, which had collected under the skull.” (On the use of the Trepan.) All our modern authorities, including Mr. Guthrie, admit the reality of the case in which fracture of the base of the skull is produced by a blow on the upper part of the head. In imitation of our author, this case was denominated “infortunium” by the earlier authorities, such as Asellius and Porralius, being accounted an irremediable misfortune, because its seat could not be detected; and it is noticed in the following terms by Sir Astley Cooper, who did not trouble himself much about the writings of his predecessors, but formed his opinions from actual observation: “When the basis of the skull is fractured from a high fall, from the whole pressure of the body resting upon that part, on opening the brain and tearing up the dura mater, extravasated blood is commonly observed; _this kind of fracture must inevitably prove fatal, nor can it be discovered till after death_.” (Lectures, xiii.) [792] Whatever opinion may now be formed of the rule of practice here laid down, all must admit that it is clearly stated and distinctly defined. We have seen above that our author describes five modes of injury in the skull, namely, the incision or indentation, confined to its outer table; the contusion; the direct fracture; the fracture _par contre-coup_; and the depression. He now states decidedly that it is only in the case of contusion and simple fracture, that the trepan can be applied with advantage. I have entered so fully into the _rationale_ of this practice in the Argument, that I do not think it necessary to say more on the subject in this place.
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.