DIRECT EXAMINATION
Mr. McHaney: Doctor, can you express any opinion as to the purpose of the type of operation to which she [Karolewska] was subjected, that is the bone removal?
Dr. Alexander: I think it must have been one of the experiments which aimed at the question of regeneration of bone or possible transplantation of bone. Chances are that this tibial graft was either implanted in another person or that grafts had been exchanged. Of course today, 3 years after the experiment, no trace of transplantation is left in this individual. Or if the object was, as alleged in some statements I have seen, that tibial grafts were exchanged between the two legs, one must conclude that the experiment was negative because there is no evidence that a graft took. All we see now are the consequences of removal of a graft, and the graft had included the entire compact part of the bone, otherwise the repair would have been better. If some part of the compact had remained, the periosteum would have probably regenerated and today, 3 years after the operation, no X-ray would have shown the defect. So I feel that rather deep grafts were taken which went down into the spongiosa. Whether anything was replaced that later was destroyed, I do not know, except the patient stated that there was a purulent discharge, indicating that the wound had become infected, and her statement of a subsequent operation, in fact, if I am not mistaken, two subsequent operations, indicates the probability that the grafts did not take and that they were removed after infection had become obvious.
[43] Final plea is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 15 July 1947, pp. 10874-10910.
[44] Dr. Maczka appeared as witness before the Tribunal, 10 January 1947, Tr. pp. 1430-1462.
[45] Complete testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 20 Dec. 1946, pp. 815-832.
[46] This testimony is recorded in mimeographed transcript, 20 Dec. 1946, pp. 832-838.