Abstract
Why are there so many opinions for surgical treatments? Why do surgeons not agree on the same definitions? To adjust the art and science of surgery, we should understand the reason behind this Tower of Babel and ourselves by grasping the three biological lessons of history. These lessons are instincts of man – our instincts have not changed for as long as there has been recorded history. The lessons were elucidated by Will and Ariel Durant and these are competition, selection, and reproduction. How might they be applied to improving our surgical science?
First, competition has always forced individuals or small groups to strengthen themselves with cooperation. Cooperate or not survive. Cooperation increases with social development and technology. Next, we must realize that nature relishes diversity. We are all born unequal and diverse. The second biological lesson is selection; which individual among a diverse group of individuals will succeed (by improving)? Therefore, by nature, man’s instincts provide diverse opinions and bias. This creates a myopic view when surgeons try to discern the truth. The results are the trendy bandwagons that divert us, like tonsillectomy. Too much diversity is bad, and a balance is required. Man’s third lesson of history is reproduction. Better stated is that nature loves quantity. We naturally give priority to quantity over quality. To obtain quality rather than just quantity, we need the antidotes for competition and diversity – that would be cooperation using the Deming guidelines of leadership, profound knowledge, and technology. One example of this urge for quantity and diversity is our lack of standardized definitions. These three biological lessons can be summarized by viewing competition as an impediment for quality improvement in the complex challenges of modern healthcare. Cooperation (trust) is the antidote to the bandwagon effect of unproven treatments. Cooperation and technology can be joined to establish a successful team using the global technology of the internet (“Club Web”). To improve, we must measure real cases in a registry and generate a standard set of definitions and benchmarks. A focus group that trusts each other through the common interest of a disease or organ could succeed. Only then does comparison (and improvement) become possible.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Fromm D. Toward a more perfect society. J Gastrointest Surg 1999;3:565–572.
Hermann RE. Role models in the education of surgeons. Am J Surg 1990;159:2–7.
Rikkers LF. The bandwagon effect. J Gastrointest Surg 2002;6:787–794.
Morens DM. Death of a president. N Engl J Med 1999;341:1845–1849.
Longmire WP, Jr. Presidential address: some wise men in American surgery. Ann Surg 1968;168:311–318.
Lewis FR. Maintenance of certification: American Board of Surgery goals. Am Surg 2006;72:1092–1096.
Hebeler HK. J.K. Lasser’s Your Winning Retirement Plan. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2001.
Santayana G. Reason in Common Sense: The Life of Reason. New York, NY: Dover, 1980.
Durant A, Durant W. The Story of Civilization (11 Volume Series). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1975.
Durant W, Durant A. The Lessons of History. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1968.
Tompkins RK. Gut reactions. Am J Surg 1988;155:2–5.
Cohn I, Jr. Presidential address: gastrointestinal cancer. Surgical survey of abdominal tragedy. Am J Surg 1978;135:3–11.
Deming WE. The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2000.
McCoy R. The Best of Deming. Knoxville, TN: SPC, 1994.
Picozzi VJ, Kozarek RA, Traverso LW. Interferon-based adjuvant chemoradiation therapy after pancreaticoduodenectomy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Am J Surg 2003;185:476–480.
Traverso LW. Pancreatic cancer: surgery alone is not sufficient. Surg Endosc 2006;20 Suppl 2:S446–S449.
Liu RC, Traverso LW. Diagnostic laparoscopy improves staging of pancreatic cancer deemed locally unresectable by computed tomography. Surg Endosc 2005;19:638–642.
Sohn TA, Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Koniaris L, Kaushal S, Abrams RA, Sauter PK, Coleman J, Hruban RH, Lillemoe KD. Resected adenocarcinoma of the pancreas—616 patients: results, outcomes, and prognostic indicators. J Gastrointest Surg 2000;4:567–579.
Park SJ, Kim SW, Jang JY, Lee KU, Park YH. Intraoperative transfusion: is it a real prognostic factor of periampullary cancer following pancreatoduodenectomy? World J Surg 2002;26:487–492.
Di Carlo V, Zerbi A, Balzano G, Corso V. Pylorus-preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy versus conventional Whipple operation. World J Surg 1999;23:920–925.
Lin PW, Lin YJ. Prospective randomized comparison between pylorus-preserving and standard pancreaticoduodenectomy. Br J Surg 1999;86:603–607.
Seiler CA, Wagner M, Sadowski C, Kulli C, Buchler MW. Randomized prospective trial of pylorus-preserving vs. Classic duodenopancreatectomy (Whipple procedure): initial clinical results. J Gastrointest Surg 2000;4:443–452.
Tran KT, Smeenk HG, van Eijck CH, Kazemier G, Hop WC, Greve JW, Terpstra OT, Zijlstra JA, Klinkert P, Jeekel H. Pylorus preserving pancreaticoduodenectomy versus standard Whipple procedure: a prospective, randomized, multicenter analysis of 170 patients with pancreatic and periampullary tumors. Ann Surg 2004;240:738–745.
Yeo CJ, Cameron JL, Lillemoe KD, Sohn TA, Campbell KA, Sauter PK, Coleman J, Abrams RA, Hruban RH. Pancreaticoduodenectomy with or without distal gastrectomy and extended retroperitoneal lymphadenectomy for periampullary adenocarcinoma, part 2: randomized controlled trial evaluating survival, morbidity, and mortality. Ann Surg 2002;236:355–366.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Traverso, L.W. Presidential Address: Adjusting the Art and the Science of Surgery. J Gastrointest Surg 11, 1233–1241 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-007-0229-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11605-007-0229-5