26o Veterinary Obstetrics 



We have known, however, a veterinarian to force a finger 

 through the cervical walls into the peritoneal cavity. 



Sober consideration must convince anyone that such rough 

 methods are not only antagonistic to the production of the desired 

 result, but actually dangerous for the well-being of the patient 

 and profoundly repulsive from a surgical standpoint. 



A rudely dilated os uteri means hemorrhage into the cervical 

 canal, with consequent blood coagula in the parts, which, if the 

 animal is at once served, would seriously impede, or prevent, the 

 passage of .spermatoza through the canal. At the same time, 

 the pain from the physical injuries will cause straining and tend 

 to result in an unusually and injuriously complete expulsion of 

 the semen. 



If time is permitted to elapse after the operation before serv- 

 ice is permitted, the injured parts become inflamed and swollen, 

 and the closed os more tightly closed than before the operation. 

 Infection almost inevitably contributes to the dangers to the life 

 of the spermatozoa. 



These conditions not alone tend to prohibit impregnation, but 

 endanger the health of the genital passages, by planting infec- 

 tion in the injured tissues and, in our clinical experience, chronic 

 pyometra has followed " opening " so closely in some cases as to 

 point to the rude operation as the probable basic cause of the 

 malady. 



Others, especially veterinarians of excellent repute, instead of 

 resorting to these rude and barbarous means of dilation, apply, 

 the more scientific and far less dangerous expedient of intro- 

 ducing, into the cervical canal, sponge or kelp tents, which, 

 through the absorption of fluids, swell up and gently dilate the 

 canal. Admittedly they are far milder and safer. But they are 

 only applicable in those cases where the canal is already permea- 

 ble, as they cannot otherwise be inserted. As above suggested, 

 when the canal is penetrable, the further dilation is, in our 

 judgment, unnecessary, if not wholly unwarranted. 



Nor is the danger from infection wholly obviated. Any foreign 

 body, unless it be permanently a.septic or antiseptic, invites infec- 

 tion in the part and, when the dilating body is remoVed and the 

 infection left behind, it remains as a menace to all .spermatozoa 

 which must pass through the infected tract on their way to con- 

 jugation with the ova. 



