Diskussion:Teodorico Borgognoni

"Laudable Pus Hippocrates (circa 460–370 BC) may have been the first to hold an opinion on suppuration, asserting that the formation of pus was not a natural component in the healing process and suppuration should be avoided. His recommendations for managing wounds were similar to those of the Sumerians: cleansing with wine, applying a bandage, and then pouring wine on the bandage.[4]

Claudius Galen (circa A.D. 130–200), a surgeon to the gladiators in Pergamum, idealized Hippocrates and championed Hippocratic doctrines in the practice of medicine. Galen was a prolific writer on the science of medicine and became an outspoken proponent for experimentation, encouraging the questioning of established doctrines to expand scientific knowledge. (Ironically, his ideas became an established orthodoxy and prevailed unquestioned for 15 centuries.) His works were translated into many languages and became the lexicon for medical practice until the modern era. Many of his assertions proved true; however, one very important assumption was horrifically incorrect: that the formation of pus was essential for wound healing. This deviation from the Hippocratic dogma is one that would plague surgeons and hinder surgical progress until the time of Lister.[1]

One thousand years later, Theodoric Borgognoni of Cervia (1205–1298) challenged Galen's view of suppuration. Theodoric dedicated much of his career to finding the ideal conditions for wound healing and settled on four essentials: control of bleeding, removal of contaminated or necrotic material, avoidance of dead space, and careful application of the wound dressing. He also strongly emphasized the avoidance of "laudable" pus.[16] Nevertheless, because his views were in opposition to the established orthodoxy of Galen, he was denounced by his colleagues and the church.[4] Galen's doctrine of suppuration would remain the rule for wound management until the late 19th century.

That surgeons welcomed the sight of a purulent wound may be explained by the environment in which they were forced to practice. Wounds could be classified into two different categories: those with suppuration and those without. Wounds productive of a creamy, yellow ooze tended to run a chronic course, taking months to heal, but the patients were generally free of systemic symptoms.[15] As Alexander[1] recounts, it was noted by Steven Smith as late as 1887 that "amputation wounds rarely, if ever, recovered at Bellevue, except after long-continued suppuration." Conversely, a thin, watery discharge was associated with a fatal outcome, with the patient dying of sepsis within days. With an infection rate of almost 100%, a purulent wound represented the lesser of the two evils. Therefore, it is of little wonder that even the most conscientious surgeons preferred and even encouraged the formation of pus." http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/503947

Belege

Im Artikel sind keine überprüfbaren Nachweise genannt. Eine Inkunabel bzw. deren Nachdruck und eine englische Übersetzung sind nicht hinreichend. Und wer verlinkt, sollte vielleicht auch mal einen Blick in verlinkte Artikel tun, dann würde er feststellen, daß der Mann kaum Arzt des 1216 verstorbenen Papstes Innocenz III. gewesen ein kann. -- Enzian44 00:14, 25. Feb. 2011 (CET)

Diesem Problem habe ich inzwischen abgeholfen. -- Enzian44 01:03, 17. Aug. 2011 (CEST)

Fehlende Quellenangabe

Welche frühen arabischen Schriften (bitte eine genaue Quellenangabe oder ein Zitat samt Quelle anführen)? Und was wird dort beschrieben, echte Inhalationsanästhesie oder nur das "Rauchen" von Opium und Cannabis, dessen eigentlicher Hauptzweck ja im Drogenkonsum besteht. Denn das inhalieren von verräucherten Kräutern/Drogen kennt man wahrscheinlich mindestens seit dem Neolithikum. Der Schlafschwamm wird in Europa jedenfalls bereits im Bamberger Antidotarium des späten 9. J.h. beschrieben. Noch vor den einschlägigen Texten des isl. Raums, oder irgendeiner mutmaßlichen Herleitung aus der Hochschule von Salerno.--80.240.225.83 15:22, 9. Jan. 2014 (CET)

Wo ist von "arabischen Schriften" die Rede? --Georg Hügler (Diskussion) 14:54, 3. Apr. 2021 (CEST)