5 ms·
Still better than "Amputated the leg in under 2 1⁄2 minutes (the patient died afterwards in the ward from hospital gangrene; they usually did in those pre-List
by mxvzr 7y ago
Still better than "Amputated the leg in under 2 1⁄2 minutes (the patient died afterwards in the ward from hospital gangrene; they usually did in those pre-Listerian days). He amputated in addition the fingers of his young assistant (who died afterwards in the ward from hospital gangrene). He also slashed through the coat tails of a distinguished surgical spectator, who was so terrified that the knife had pierced his vitals he dropped dead from fright. That was the only operation in history with a 300 percent mortality."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Liston https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Liston
- DATACOMMANDER 7y ago“ Amputated the leg in 2 1⁄2 minutes, but in his enthusiasm the patient's testicles as well.” Sounds made up, but I’d it’s not, that’s fucked up. You can’t do that by mistake.
- blaser-waffle 7y agoBig knife, big slices, lots of force behind it... I can see it. A 2 minute amputation means they were going pretty fast.