Abstract
Streptomycin and the newer antibiotics have already belied the pessimistic agnosticism of 1947. In certain instances, notably in disease of the knee and hip and in some cases with draining sinuses, it appears that they are sufficient to produce a quiescence which may be a cure. For the rest it remains to map out in detail what has in part been explored. In particular it is essential to confirm how far antibiotics enable surgeons to treat tuberculosis upon the basic principles applicable to other infections of bone without fear of secondary infection: where there is diseased bone, to remove it: where there is pus, to relieve the tension and evacuate it. The surgeon fears not so much the infection itself as the inability of the tuberculous soil ordinarily to deal with secondary infection. With the control of the diseased soil the risk should be no greater than that of any other surgery of bone.
The early case and the advanced case; age and site of disease; these and other variables must subdivide basic method. What is the best application of the new "combined operation" to a child of three with thoracic Pott's disease and a globular abscess? What is the wisest plan for a man of forty with old disease in his lumbar vertebrae and discharging sinuses? We begin to see what we could do. At the present the question still remains: What should we do?
