( 589 



XXL — Results of Removal and Transplantation of Ovaries. By F. H. A. Marshall, 

 D.Sc, Carnegie Fellow and Lecturer on the Physiology of Reproduction, and W. A. 

 Jolly, M.B., Assistant to the Professor of Physiology, University of Edinburgh. 

 (From the Physiological Laboratory, University of Edinburgh.) (With Two Plates.) 



J(Read December 3, 1906. MS. received December 6, 1906. Issued separately May 8, 1907.) 



It is well known that double ovariotomy, when performed prior to puberty, exercises 

 a prejudicial effect not only upon the generative organs but also upon the whole 

 organism. There is, however, some disagreement as to the results of this operation 

 when performed after puberty, and particularly in regard to the occurrence of heat or 

 menstruation. 



It is the purpose of this paper to adduce further evidence upon this question, as 

 well as to describe experiments the result of which indicates that the nature of the 

 ovarian influence is chemical rather than nervous. 



Numerous instances have been cited of the occurrence of menstruation after double 

 ovariotomy. Thus three cases have been recently described by Doran (1905) in each 

 of which the ovaries were believed to have been removed, and the greater part of the 

 uterus was also removed, but where menstruation occurred at irregular intervals after 

 the operation.* Doran, however, records a large series of other cases in which 

 menstruation ceased after ovariotomy. In a further case described by Pozzi, the 

 recurrence of the catamenia after removal of the ovary is thought to have been due to 

 the presence of a uterine fibroma ; but Pozzi makes no suggestion as to why such a 

 fibroma should have the effect supposed. A case of greater interest has lately been 

 recorded by Pinard, in which ovariotomy was performed for mollities during pregnancy. 

 After delivery the catamenia returned, and also the bad symptoms. Hysterectomy was 

 then performed, and on inspection ovarian tissue was detected in the position from 

 which the ovaries had been removed. It would seem probable that the other cases of 

 menstruation taking place after double ovariotomy are to be similarly explained, on 

 the assumption that the removal was not quite complete and that the ovarian tissue 

 which remained underwent hypertrophy. That this interpretation is correct is 

 rendered the more probable in view of the cases referred to by Doran (1902), in which 

 pregnancy occurred after the supposed removal of both ovaries. Since the publication 

 of Doran's paper in which the literature is given, a further case of pregnancy after 

 double ovariotomy has been put on record by Meredith (1904). 



It is a not uncommon practice among veterinarians to remove the ovaries of dogs 



* Bell (1906), referring to such cases in a recent paper, is disposed to ascribe the continuance of menstruation to 

 the presence of the uterus, which he regards as sufficient for the purpose even in the complete absence of the ovary. 

 TRANS. ROY. SOC. EDIN., VOL. XLV. PART III. (NO. 21). 83 



