These thick grafts never became established because their underlying layer of fat and other tissue prevented revascularization. In retrospect, the technical failure of even the early autografts was not surprising because at first full-thickness skin grafts were used. After centuries of sloppy observation and self-deception, the realization crept in that detached (free) skin grafts were useless. Success was even claimed for grafts of whole ears and noses. Only in the last half of the 20th century has there been a consensus that the outcome of homografts differs from that of autografts.įor a long time, proponents of skin homografts refused to admit that they would not work. Even the great eighteenth century experimentalist John Hunter, who transplanted human teeth and autotransplanted cocks’ spurs into their combs, seemed unaware that homografts would fail ( Martin 1970). But not until the twentieth century was it ever mentioned that grafts might fail. The obvious extension of these methods was to use detached or “free” grafts of the patient’s own tissue or that of other donors. As early as 600 b.c., the use of autogenous skin flaps to replace missing noses was conceived, and by the sixteenth century, Gaspare Tagliacozzi ( Tagliacozzi 1597) and other pioneering plastic surgeons were successful with such procedures. Envisioned were complex transplants such as the “successful” transplantation of an entire leg by the 3rd century sainted physicians Cosmos and Damien, which is depicted in several famous paintings ( Zimmerman 1998). The idea of replacing diseased or damaged body parts has been around for millennia. Retrieved August 13, 2017.PRE-HISTORY: THE ERA OF MYTHS AND MIRACLES
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |