MECHANICAL EXTRACTION OF THE FCETUS. 531 



hnndsof empirics, and which can be only barbarous and brutal by reason of 

 the ignorance of those who apply it : I speak of the windlass, and wheel 

 and axle. ... It is now amply demonstrated to me that this obstetrical 

 means, so little enticing at first sight, is the first among all the means for 

 producing traction which the veterinary surgeon has at his disposal — pro- 

 vided always that he watches its operation with much attention .... so 

 that no part of the foetus wedges against the sides of the pelvis ; for the 

 windlass does not know of any obstacle which it cannot overcome." And 

 Garreau, commenting on Baron's obstetric machine just described, re- 

 marks {Report a la Soc. Centrale de Med Veterinaire, 1858) : " From 

 what has been said, it results from an examination of every part of this 

 apparatus : that the mechanism is simple, and works well and easily ; that 

 its power is at least equal to that of the pulleys, windlass, or capstan ; 

 that its action is based on mechanical laws ; that the traction it produces 

 is so gentle, slow, and regular, that it is without danger for the mother ; 

 that its employment altogether leaves behind all the other means used for 

 the production of the necessary counter-extension in foetal extraction ; 

 that the collar transmits, in a regular manner, and to the whole of the 

 inferior and posterior parts of the maternal pelvis, the pressure it receives 

 from the female screw ; that this pressure, disseminated over the entire 

 hind-quarters of the female, is proportionally less severe and painful 

 during traction of a given intensity." 



Many more references could be given to other very competent author- 

 ities in favor of mechanical over manual traction ; but we will sum the 

 evidence by stating that mechanical traction is preferable to that pro- 

 duced by manual power, inasmuch as it is slower, more regular, its ac- 

 tion is more sustained, and it is more powerful and efficacious, without 

 imposing increased strain on the parent or foetus. Manual traction is 

 unsteady and jerking, especially when several men are pulling ; all the men 

 do not pull alike or at the same time, therefore even during traction, 

 however steady it may aim to be, the strain varies ; men soon become 

 fatigued, whereas the machine can maintain the traction for any length 

 of time without increasing or diminishing it. 



One of the objections urged against machine traction, is that its direc- 

 tion cannot be so easily varied upwards, downwards, or to one side or the 

 other, as manual traction. But this is a very trifling objection, and it 

 may be nearly, if not altogether, overcome by making assistants press 

 against the cord or cords, so as to give them the necessary direction. 



When powerful traction is required, whether it be manual or mechan- 

 ical, great attention is necessary in guiding the foetus through the genital 

 canal, so as to prevent injury to the parent. The traction should cease 

 in the intervals between the labor-pains, and the efforts ought not to be 

 continuous ; the animal should bs allowed intervals of rest, and time be 

 given for the genital canal to dilate and adapt itself to the passage of the 

 foetus. Severe and injudicious traction may be productive of the most 

 serious results. Even when tiae operation is nearly terminated, care will 

 be requisite in order to prevent inversion of the uterus. This accident 

 may be obviated by careful manipulation, and abundant injection of 

 emollient fluids.* 



* While on the subject of mechanical traction in veterinary obstetrics, we may note that two distinguished 

 French accoucheurs — MM. Chassagny and Joulin — have recently introduced an apparatus intended to 

 replace mechanical for manual traction in the human female, botlj being unanimous with regard to the 



# • 



