Advertisement

Inspecting Objects: Visibility Manoeuvres in Laparoscopic Surgery

  • Jeff Bezemer
  • Ged Murtagh
  • Alexandra Cope
Chapter

Abstract

In this chapter we explore how surgeons perform inspections inside patients’ bodies prior to making invasive manoeuvres that could damage vital anatomical structures. Drawing on a video corpus of keyhole operations, we show that the inspections are characterised by a distinct set of visibility manoeuvres. We describe these non-invasive operations on anatomical structures as ‘transitive gestures’. Thus the chapter draws attention to the meaning potential of a common, yet hitherto undocumented type of practical-technical surgical action, and demonstrates the relevance of embodied activity as an object of inquiry in (health) communication research.

References

  1. Bezemer, Jeff, and Gunther Kress. 2016. Multimodality, learning and communication: A social semiotic frame. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  2. Bezemer, Jeff, Ged Murtagh, Alexandra Cope, and Roger Kneebone. 2016. Surgical decision making in a teaching hospital: A linguistic analysis. ANZ Journal of Surgery 86 (10): 751–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cope, Alexandra, Jeff Bezemer, Roger Kneebone, and Lorelei Lingard. 2015. You see? Teaching and learning how to interpret visual cues during surgery. Medical Education 49 (11): 1103–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Emmerton-Coughlin, Heather, Christopher Schlachta, and Lorelei Lingard. 2017. ‘The other right’: Control strategies and the role of language use in laparoscopic training. Medical Education 51 (12): 1269–1276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Garfinkel, Harold. 1964. Studies of the routine grounds of everyday activities. Social Problems 11 (3): 225–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Garfinkel, Harold. 1996. Ethnomethodology’s program. Social Psychology Quarterly 9 (1): 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gawande, Atul. 2002. Complications: A surgeon’s notes on an imperfect science. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
  8. Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  9. Goffman, Erving. 1983. The interaction order: American Sociological Association, 1982 Presidential Address. American Sociological Review 48 (1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goodwin, Charles. 2000. Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32 (10): 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goodwin, Charles. 2018. Co-operative action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Hirschauer, Stefan. 1991. The manufacture of bodies in surgery. Social Studies of Science 21 (2): 279–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hymes, Dell. 1962. The ethnography of speaking. In Anthropology and human behavior, ed. Thomas Gladwin and William C. Sturtevant, 13–53. Washington, DC: Anthropological Society Washington.Google Scholar
  14. Kendon, Adam. 1990. Conducting interaction: Patterns of behavior in focused encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Koschmann, Timothy, and Alan Zemel. 2011. “So that’s the ureter”: The informal logic of discovering work. Ethnographic Studies 12: 31–46.Google Scholar
  17. Koschmann, Timothy, Curtis LeBaron, Charles Goodwin, and Paul Feltovich. 2011. “Can you see the cystic artery yet?”: A simple matter of trust. Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2): 521–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kress, Gunther. 2010. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miranda, Efrain A. 2016. Medical terminology daily. https://www.clinanat.com/mtd/739-triangle-of-calot.
  20. Mondada, Lorenza. 2003. Working with video: How surgeons produce video records of their actions. Visual Studies 18: 58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mondada, Lorenza. 2011. The organisation of concurrent courses of action surgical demonstrations. In Embodied interaction. Language and body in the material world, ed. Jürgen Streeck, Charles Goodwin & Curtis LeBaron. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Mondada, Lorenza. 2014. The surgeon as a camera director: Maneuvering video in the operating theatre. In Studies of video practices: Video at work, ed. Mathias Broth, Eric Laurier, and Lorenza Mondada, 97–132. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Polanyi, Michael. 1958. Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Prentice, Rachel. 2012. Bodies in formation: An ethnography of anatomy and surgery education. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sherwinter, Danny A. n.d. Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Technique. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1582292-technique#c2. Accessed 7 Nov 2016.
  26. Strasberg, Steven M., and L. Michael Brunt. 2017. The critical view of safety: Why it is not the only method of ductal identification within the standard of care in laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Annals of Surgery 265 (3): 464–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Streeck, Jürgen. 2008. Depicting by gesture. Gesture 8 (3): 285–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Imperial College LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.University of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations