OVARIAN GRAFTING IN ANIMALS OTHER THAN MAN. 3 



Knauer (1896) was the first to report on a series of experiments with ani- 

 mals. He was led to undertake this work through Chrobak, a surgeon who 

 had himself tried feeding- ovarian substance to women in whom an artificial 

 menapause, with its attendant train of symptoms, had been brought about by 

 operation. Chxobak's results were not conclusive, and he thought surgical 

 grafting held out more hope of relief in these cases. 



In his several papers (1896-1900) Knauer, who worked on rabbits, showed 

 by a series of twelve autografts that the transplanted ovary persisted in its 

 new location even up to three years; that its appearance was normal; that 

 genital atrophy was prevented; and further, that it was possible for animals 

 so operated upon to bear young. He gives details of his very careful tech- 

 nique. The ovaries, after the castration, were placed either in the meso- 

 metrium, on the horn of the uterus, or between the fascia and muscles of the 

 abdominal wall. 



Grigoryeff (1897) confirmed Knauer's work in all its aspects and reported 

 normal young born from his rabbits after castration and autoplastic removal 

 of both ovaries. 



Ribbert (1897-1898) made careful histological examinations of autoplastic 

 ovaries, studying the initial process of destruction followed by reconstruc- 

 tion. As late as 150 days after the operation he found no atrophy. 



Fish, Rubinstein, Halban, Herlitzka, Basso, Carmichael, Katsch, Still- 

 ing, Limon, and others also proved that autoplastic grafting is possible. 

 From their work one comes to the conclusion that autografts of whole ova- 

 ries on animals should nearly always be successful, provided the technique 

 is careful and the ovary not too large or too old. Success does not appear 

 to depend upon the new position of the ovary. It will grow anywhere 

 where nourishment is assured, and will even establish itself at times when 

 merely dropped into the peritoneal cavity. In connection with this, one 

 must remember the experiment of Lode, who injected the ova of Ascaris 

 into the abdominal cavity of animals and afterwards recovered these from 

 the fallopian tubes and uterus. 



Among all these workers Arendt raises the only dissenting voice. He 

 concludes that neither autoplastic nor homoplastic ovarian grafting is pos- 

 sible. He criticizes Knauer's work and the clinical work of Glass, Morris, 

 Montprofit, and others, but his conclusions are clearly too sweeping. 



We have ourselves obtained several normal young from a rabbit whose 

 own ovaries were grafted onto the uterine horns. Both the ovaries were 

 found large and healthy in their new position at the end of nine months. 



In studying the results of homoplastic grafting we obtain, however, a very 

 different picture and are forced to conclude that the success in this group 

 depends not only on good technique, but also perhaps on the relationship of 

 the two stocks, and certainly on the intimate chemical tolerance of the 



