{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020553359683794466, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.115942028985507, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
TO CASUISTICS OF TOTAL REMOVAL OF THE UTERUS THROUGH VAGINA

One of the most interesting and important questions of operative gynecology was and is the question of surgical methods of treatment of uterine cancer. The task and purpose of each operative removal of a malignant neoplasm should be expressed, on the one hand, in its technical simplicity, and, on the other, in achieving the desired and final result, i.e., in the radical healing of the body, since the operation is undertaken under conditions with a predicted quo ad valetudinem, and not quo ad vitam. A whole galaxy of scientists, converging more or less in this complex and main goal of surgical intervention for uterine cancer, begins to break up into groups, as soon as it comes to the nature and extent of the spread of neoplasm in connection with the operative method, with indications and contraindications to it. These disagreements, depending both on the difficulty of determining in each given case microscopically the extent of cancer prevalence, and on the complexity of some of the problems, are the reason that the main surgical methods, such as: Amputatio infravaginalis colli uteri, supravaginalis, colpohysteroectomoectomia and laparohyster serve as controversial points in gynecology.