Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-lrblm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T02:02:57.929Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anatomical Correlates of Improvement After Leucotomy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2018

T. McLardy  and
A. Meyer
T. McLardy
Affiliation:
Department of Neuropathology, Research Laboratory, Maudsley Hospital, London
A. Meyer
Affiliation:
Department of Neuropathology, Research Laboratory, Maudsley Hospital, London
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Out of 95 leucotomy cases of which the brains and clinical records have been collected at this laboratory, 45 were cases with post-operative survival of over 5 months, and more than 20 of these showed some degree of clinical improvement. Such numbers now make worth while an attempt to ascertain whether or not any attribute common to the lesions is a prerequisite to clinical improvement; whether or not the degree of improvement tends to vary with any qualitative or quantitative feature of the lesions; and whether or not any such relationship between lesions and improvement which is revealed holds good in equal degree for each of the main types of functional-psychosis. Over 20 of the same 45 cases had a recorded post-operative change of personality, so that relationship of post-operative personality change to the leucotomy lesions can conveniently be investigated in the same group of cases. Only some general findings concerning the personality change will, however, be touched on in the present paper.

Type
Part I.—Original Articles
Information
Journal of Mental Science , Volume 95 , Issue 398 , January 1949 , pp. 182 - 196
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 1949 

References

Beck, E., “A Cytoarchitectural Investigation into the Boundaries of Areas 13 and 14 in Man,” (in press).Google Scholar
Frankl, L., and Mayer-Gross, W. (1947), Lancet, 2, 820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, W. (1948a), Med. Ann. Dist. Columb., 17, 257.Google Scholar
Freeman, W. (1948b), Lancet, 2, 371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, W. and Watts, J. W. (1947), J. Comp. Neurol, 86, 65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, R. G., and Pool, J. L. (1948), J. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 107, 411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, A., and Beck, E. (1945), J. Meni. Sci., 91, 411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, A. and McLardy, T. (1947), Proc. Roy. Soc. Med., 90, 141.Google Scholar
McLardy, T. (1948), J. Ment. Sci., 94, 555.Google Scholar
McLardy, T. and Beck, E. (1948), Folia Psychiat., Neurolog. et Neurochir., Neerlandica. Cengresnummer.Google Scholar
Stengel, E. (1948), Lancet, 2, 257.Google Scholar
Ward, A. A. (1948), J. Neurophysiol., 11, 13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.