EXTRACTS FROM MY CASE-BOOK. 
133 
Remarks .—In the above case the patient was sent to work just 
three weeks after the operation of neurotomy was performed ; 
and although this practice is at variance with the doctrine of 
Mr. Sewell, I do not see any reasonable objection against its 
adoption in all cases where neurotomy is employed, presuming 
that no symptom of existing inflammation is present, of which 
circumstance it is almost supererogatory to remark every judi¬ 
cious practitioner would satisfy himself before he decided upon 
operating. I remember reading a long and theoretic exposition 
of this operation in the pages of The Veterinarian, translated 
from the French of MM. Dupuy and Prince, in which their 
argument against it is founded upon their most astonishing igno¬ 
rance of the nervous system generally, and especially of the 
varied and distinct, and, to a certain extent, independent func¬ 
tions of its three divisions. They most absurdly assume, that 
upon the metacarpal nerves ‘‘depend alike the nutrition and 
sensibility of the parts to which they are given.” They speak 
of the changes in the shape and volume of the hoof, and appear 
to be sceptical as to the secretion of horn; and state, that the 
operation is almost only applicable to diseases arising from excess 
of nutrition. Now, had they been aware how totally unconnected 
these spinal nerves are with the nutritive or secretory process ; or, 
allowing their want of knowledge of that well-founded fact, had 
they had practical experience in a single case where all feeling 
in the foot was cut off, I think they would not have published 
such a specimen of ingenious but unsound physiological reason¬ 
ing as the paper alluded to contains. That all the vital powers 
are continued with energy, unimpaired by the excision of a part of 
the metacarpal nerves and the consequent suspension of all sen¬ 
sibility in the foot, is abundantly demonstrated in the extract 
I have made to-day. It will be seen, that, two months after the 
patient underwent the operation, she received a severe tread on 
the inner coronet of the off fore foot, from the raised heel of the 
opposite shoe. Had feeling remained in the part, the wound 
would, most probably, have been earlier discovered ; but, being 
void of feeling, no lameness was^ apparent, and the grievance 
was undiscovered and^neglected untiLit degenerated into a quittor. 
Yet by the application of Mr. Newport’s humane remedy, a 
healthy action^is immediately set up, and in ten days hardly a 
vestige of disease remains. Had the French theory been correct, 
this^effect could not have been produced. But I am dwelling 
on this simple point ^longer ^than its self-evidence renders 
necessary. 
Ilefore 1 (’onclude this hasty sketch, I would just observe, that 
the navicular disease affords one of the aptest illustrations of the 
