Plate 60.—Figure 12.
Fig. 13, Plate 60.—The prostate, bc, is considerably enlarged anteriorly, b, in consequence of which the prostatic canal appears more horizontal even than natural. The catheter, d, occupying the canal lies nearly straight. The lower wall, c, of the prostate is much diminished in thickness. A nipple-shaped process, a, is seen to be attached by a pedicle to the back of the upper part, b, of the prostate, and to act like a stopper to the neck of the bladder. The body a being moveable, it will be perceived how, while the bladder is distended with urine, the pressure from above may block up the neck of the organ with this part, and thus cause complete retention, which, on the introduction of a catheter, becomes readily relieved by the instrument pushing the obstructing body aside.
Plate 60.—Figure 13.
COMMENTARY ON PLATES 61 & 62.
DEFORMITIES OF THE PROSTATE.—DISTORTIONS AND OBSTRUCTIONS OF THE PROSTATIC URETHRA.
The prostate is liable to such frequent and varied deformities, the consequence of diseased action, whilst, at the same time, its healthy function (if it have any) in the male body is unknown, that it admits at least of one interpretation which may, according to fact, be given of it—namely, that of playing a principal part in effecting some of the most distressing of “the thousand natural ills that flesh is heir to.” But heedless of such a singular explanation of a final cause, the practical surgeon will readily confess the fitting application of the interpretation, such as it is, and rest contented with the proximate facts and proofs. As physiologists, however, it behooves us to look further into nature, and search for the ultimate fact in her prime moving law. The prostate is peculiar to the male body, the uterus to the female. With the exception of these two organs there is not another which appears in the one sex but has its analogue in the opposite sex; and thus these two organs, the prostate and the uterus, appear by exclusion of the rest to approach the test of comparison, by which their analogy becomes as fully manifested as that between the two quantities, a-b, and a+b the only difference which exists depends upon the subtraction or the addition of the quantity, b. The difference between a prostate and a uterus is simply one of quantity, such as we see existing between the male and the female breast. The prostate is to the uterus absolutely what a rudimentary organ is to its fully developed analogue. The one, as being superfluous, is in accordance with nature’s law of nihil supervacaneum nihil frutra, arrested in its development, and in such a character appears the prostate. This body is not a gland any more than is the uterus, but both organs being quantitatively, and hence functionally different, I here once more venture to call down an interpretation of the part from the unfrequented bourne of comparative anatomy, and turning it to lend an interest to the accompanying figures even with a surgical bearing, I remark that the prostatic or rudimentary uterus, like a germ not wholly blighted, is prone to an occasional sprouting or increase beyond its prescribed dimensions—a hypertrophy in barren imitation, as it were, of gestation. [Footnote]
[Footnote: This expression of the fact to which I allude will not, I trust, be extended beyond the limits I assign to it. Though I have every reason to believe, that between the prostate of the male and the uterus of the female, the same amount of analogy exists, as between a coccygeal ossicle and the complete vertebral form elsewhere situated in the spinal series, I am as far from regarding the two former to be in all respects structurally or functionally alike, as I am from entertaining the like idea in respect to the two latter. But still I maintain that between a prostate and a uterus, as between a coccygeal bone and a vertebra, the only difference which exists is one of quantity, and that hence arises the functional difference. A prostate is part of a uterus, just as a coccygeal bone is part (the centrum) of a vertebra. That this is the absolute signification of the prostate I firmly believe, and were this the proper place, I could prove it in detail, by the infallible rule of analogical reasoning. John Hunter has observed that the use of the prostate was not sufficiently known to enable us to form a judgment of the bad consequences of its diseased state. When the part becomes morbidly enlarged, it acts as a mechanical impediment to the passage of urine from the bladder, but from this circumstance we cannot reasonably infer, that while of its normal healthy proportions, its special function is to facilitate the egress of the urine, for the female bladder, though wholly devoid of the prostate, performs its own function perfectly. It appears to me, therefore, that the real question should be, not what is the use of the prostate? but has it any proper function? If the former question puzzled even the philosophy of Hunter, it was because the latter question must be answered in the negative. The prostate has no function proper to itself per se. It is a thing distinct from the urinary apparatus, and distinct likewise from the generative organs. It may be hypertrophied or atrophied, or changed in texture, or wholly destroyed by abscess, and yet neither of the functions of these two systems of organs will be impaired, if the part while diseased act not as an obstruction to them. In texture the prostate is similar to an unimpregnated uterus. In form it is, like the uterus, symmetrical. In position it corresponds to the uterus. The prostate has no ducts proper to itself. Those ducts which are said to belong to it (prostatic ducts) are merely mucous cells, similar to those in other parts of the urethral lining membrane. The seminal ducts evidently do not belong to it. The texture of the prostate is not such as appears in glandular bodies generally. In short, the facts which prove what it is not, prove what it actually is—namely, a uterus arrested in its development, and as a sign of that all-encompassing law in nature, which science expresses by the term “unity in variety.” This interpretation of the prostate, which I believe to be true to nature, will last perhaps till such time as the microscopists shall discover in its “secretion” some species of mannikins, such as may pair with those which they term spermatozoa.]
Fig. 1, Plate 61.—The prostate, a b, is here represented thinned in its walls above and below. The lower wall is dilated into a pouch caused by the points of misdirected instruments in catheterism having been rashly forced against it.
