Search

President James A. Garfield suffered two gunshots on July 2, 1881, but did not die until 80 days later of complications from sepsis. He might have survived had his injuries not been contaminated, either by the gunshots themselves or the interventions that followed. "Yes, I shot the president," said Charles Guiteau, Garfield's assassin, "but his physicians killed him." The drama of Garfield's struggle to survive his injuries evoked enormous national interest, a harbinger of the medical dramas and documentaries of today. D. Willard Bliss, a former Civil War surgeon, and his handpicked consultants underwent daily scrutiny by the professional community and lay press. As the President died because of his injuries, the surgeons' reputations suffered. A primary criticism was the supposed lack of antiseptic interventions in Garfield's care, especially when probing the wound with unwashed hands. Inserting a finger into the wound, however, was a basic part of examination of a gunshot wound at the time. Many American surgeons had not accepted Listerian antisepsis at the time of the event, and aseptic techniques, such as scrupulous handwashing and surgical gloves, had not yet been developed. In the context of surgical practice of the era, his surgeons followed the standards of care of the time.

The 19th and 20th centuries heralded the advancement of our understanding of surgical infections, reducing the risk of morbidity and mortality to patients by overturning long-held dogmas surrounding infections and perioperative care. These advancements impacted the development and establishment of the field of neurological surgery by minimizing surgical risk through aseptic techniques and promoting surgical benefit via improved neurological localization and surgical technique. Infections were significant contributors to morbidity and mortality for all surgical patients, and historically almost half of patients lost their lives as a consequence of perioperative wound contamination. With advancing understanding of germ theory, contagion, antisepsis, and subsequently asepsis, the surgeon began embracing the knowledge and techniques which would hone their craft and allow for a renaissance in the management of neurological disorders in an unprecedented manner.

Daniel Mollière, was a French anatomist and surgeon, born in Lyon, who succeeded in his short life in making his mark in surgery. He was a prolific writer who left a series of medical treatises and a committed surgeon who was responsible for various significant innovative apparatuses in the medical sper. As he lived in an era when the role of microbe had already been recognized, he was among the first to use antisepsis and install extreme measures against microbes, both in the air and on the skin'. Fountains with fresh clean water, carbonic acid, cross ventilation, medical blouses, combined with Valette's apparatus for the dressing of amputations, were some of his precautions to reduce surgical infections and post-operative mortality.

Background: The first reliable statistic data about perioperatory mortality were published in 1841 by the French Joseph-Francois Malgaigne (1806-1863): he referred to a mean mortality of 60% for amputations and this bad result was to be attributed mainly to hospital acquired diseases. The idea of "hospital acquired disease" although vague, included five infective nosologic entities, which at that time were diagnosed more frequently: erysipelas, tetan, pyemia, septicemia, and gangrene. Nonetheless, the suppuration with pus production was considered from most of the surgeons and doctors of that time as a necessary and unavoidable step in the process of wound healing. During the end of the eighteenth century, hospitals of the main European cities were transforming into aggregations of several wards, where the high concentration of patients created poor sanitary conditions and a consistent increase of perioperatory mortality. In 1865, Lister applied his first antiseptic dressing on the surface of an exposed fracture. These experimental attempts lead to an effective reduction of wound infections respect to the dressing with strings used previously., Discussion: Lister's innovations in the field of wound treatment were based on two brand new concepts: germs causing rot were ubiquitarious and the wound infection was not a normal step in the process of wound healing. The concept of antisepsis was hardly accepted in the European surgical world: "Of all countries, Italy is the most indifferent and uninterested in experimenting this method, which has been so favorably judged from the greatest surgical societies in Germany". This quotation from the young surgeon Giuseppe Ruggi (1844-1925) from Bologna comes from his article where he presented his first experiences on aseptic medications started the previous year in the Surgical Department of Maggiore Hospital in Bologna. In his report, Ruggi described the adopted technique and suggested that the medication should be extended to all the surgical patients of the hospital:"… this is needed to totally remove from the hospital all those elements of infection which grow in the wounds dressed with the old method". The experimentation of this new dressing for the few treated cases was rigorous and concerned both the sterilization of surgical tools with the fenic acid (5%) and the shaving of the skin. Ruggi also observed that there was no correlation between the seriousness of the wound and its extension or way of healing: when "simple" cases that "should heal without complication" showed fever he often realized that "it was often due to a medication performed without following the rules for an accurate disinfection and dressing". Ruggi thought that the fever was connected to "reabsorption of pyrogenic substances, which can be removed cleaning and disinfecting the wound" in cases of wounds not accurately dressed and rarely medicated. Frequent postoperative medications of the wound were able to eliminate the fever within 2 h. Ruggi's attitude toward the fine reasoning lead him to introduce the concept of immunodeficiency related to physical deterioration: "… patients treated for surgical disease may sometimes suffer from complications of medical conditions, which initially escape the most accurate investigations… The surgical operation could, in some cases, hold the balance of power"., Conclusions: The obtained results, published in 1879, appear extremely interesting. As he wrote in 1898, for the presentation of his case record of more than 1000 laparotomies, he had started "… operating as a young surgeon without any tutor, helped only by his mind and what he could deduce from publications existing at the moment …"., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: It is widely believed that trepanation prior to modern surgical hygiene was dangerous because of surgical infection, especially in the hospital. There has been a wide variability in the success and risks of different historical studies, Purpose: To obtain a more accurate assessment of the risks of post-operative infection following 18th-century cranial trauma and to note what factors were of prognostic significance., Material and Methods: Seven 18th-century texts on head injury are reviewed and analyzed., Results: Infection was the commonest cause of death (in over 60% of patients) in five series but not in the other two. Hospital admission did not appear to be a major factor influencing mortality from infection. Delayed infection was the indication for patient referral and trepanation in more than two patients in two series. In one series, the patients were helped by the procedure, in the other they were not. The reasons for the difference are discussed. The most striking finding was that patients treated in rural areas had a much better prognosis., Conclusions: The risks of suffering a surgical infection following head injury and trepanation are multifactorial. Admission to hospital seems to have been less risky than has been previously thought. It seems that the greatest risk factor for a lethal infection for these patients was living in an urban environment.

The paper deals with the impact of antisepsis on German surgery between 1872 and 1892. It describes the acceptance of Lister's treatment as the result of a therapeutic mass experiment. In the face of tremendous mortality rates in the surgical wards of general and larger academic hospitals, the evidence persuaded the critics within only few years, wile the discussion on theoretical questions was intentionally avoided. The author suggests to reconsider the impact of bacteriology on modern surgery and to put more emphasis on professional and social developments, and on the role of evidence in hospital medicine.

This biographical sketch on Baron Joseph Lister corresponds to the historic text, The Classic: On the Antiseptic Principle in the Practice of Surgery (1867), available at DOI 10.1007/s11999-010-1320-x .

This Classic Article is a reprint of the original work by Baron Joseph Lister, On the Antiseptic Principle in the Practice of Surgery. An accompanying biographical sketch of Baron Joseph Lister is available at DOI 10.1007/s11999-010-1319-3 . The Classic Article is (c)1867 and is reprinted with courtesy from Lister J. On the antiseptic principle in the practice of surgery. Br Med J. 1867;ii:246.

This biographical sketch on John Albert Key corresponds to the historic text, The Classic: Sulfonamides in the Treatment of Chronic Osteomyelitis, available at DOI 10.1007/s11999-009-0797-7.

This article reexamines the surgical and historiographic debate over antisepsis and the germ theory through the work of the prominent London surgeon George W. Callender (1830-1879) and the statistical records of St. Bartholomew's Hospital. Surgeons in the mid-nineteenth century faced a rising incidence of wound infection and its systemic complications. Examining mortality and complication rates by type of wound, however, suggests that the extent of this crisis is often overstated. Callender himself occupied a frequently overlooked middle ground in the debate over Listerism. On the one hand, his program of cleanliness, which antedated Lister's work and extended from the wound to the ward, produced excellent and influential results. On the other, while he was never an explicit critic of the germ theory, his writings demonstrate why Lister's collapse of causation into a single etiologic agent was so difficult for surgeons to accept.

Archibald Watson was an Australian anatomist and surgeon who kept operating theater diaries. He made detailed notes on the work of surgeons that he observed in Britain and North America, as well as in Australia. Watson's diaries provide significant evidence that early twentieth-century surgeons did not just apply scientific knowledge produced somewhere else. They generated new surgical knowledge themselves and worked within a culture that valued innovation. Some of the surgeons observed by Watson practiced in academic centers and regularly engaged in laboratory research, but most did not. Nevertheless, it is clear that whether in Australia, Britain, or North America, the active search for improved techniques was a routine feature of the practice of full-time surgeons. In the process, they often made mistakes--or rather, they often did things with which at least some of their colleagues did not agree. Much of surgical practice was contestable. Doing things the "right" way and finding better ways to do things were overlapping categories; but it is often difficult or impossible to draw any distinction at all between doing things the "wrong" way and failed attempts at finding a better way to perform an operation. This article examines some aspects of the relationship between scientific ideas, clinical experience, contestable errors, and the generation of new knowledge through surgical practice.

Everyday use of a simple cotton bud should remind us of our not so distant past and of the appalling trade in people. Harvesting this precious commodity required forced labour eventually leading to a key turning point in the history of surgery, as civil war raged in America during the 1860s. The fight to end slavery was to reveal a new weapon against disease and certain death. A material used in this struggle against wound infection was the available stockpiles of redundant cotton. Once boiled to make softer, its use on patients in military hospitals proved to be the first clinical application of sterile surgical dressings.

The use of prophylactic antibiotics in orthopaedic surgery is effective in reducing surgical site infections in hip and knee arthroplasty, spine surgery, and open reduction and internal fixation of fractures. To maximize the beneficial effect of prophylactic antibiotics while minimizing adverse effects, the correct antimicrobial agent must be selected, the drug must be administered just before incision, and the duration of administration should not exceed 24 hours.

Since the caveman, man has been tending to his wounds. Wound care evolved from magical incantations, potions, and ointments, to a systematic text of wound care and surgery from Hippocrates and Celsus. These advances were lost after the fall of the Roman Empire. In Europe, the Middle Ages were a regression of wound care back to potions and charms. It was'nt until the time of large armies using muskets and cannons that surgical wound care emerged again. This article will briefly highlight major milestones in wound care.

Despite intensive research over past decades, infections and organ failure remain the most common severe complications in the critically ill surgical patient. Multiple-organ dysfunction syndrome represents the clinical endpoint of a cascade of mainly immunologic and cardiovascular events, ultimately leading to progressive patient deterioration and high mortality. Few clinicians have contributed as vigorously as Hiram C. Polk, Jr, to improve the treatment and outcome in surgical patients suffering from these disorders. His effort to standardize perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, to introduce quantitative tracheal cultures for the diagnosis of pneumonia in trauma patients, or to use blood markers such as monocyte HLA-DR expression to identify patients at risk for adverse outcome are but some excerpts of his career as an academic surgeon. This article describes surgical infections and organ failure from a historical perspective, with emphasis on Polk's contributions, and describes our current understanding of the pathophysiology of organ dysfunction in surgical patients.

At the end of the 19th century, the early evolution of the specialty of neurological surgery was restricted by complications related to infection, increased intracranial pressure, and excessive intraoperative blood loss. These complications often caused mortality rates of 30 to 50%. An improved understanding of pathophysiological factors involved in increased intracranial pressure, along with meticulous surgical techniques learned from William Halsted, allowed Harvey Cushing to increase the safety of neurosurgical procedures that were then in their infancy. Cushing's later development of the "silver clip" and incorporation of electrosurgical techniques facilitated safe resection of brain tumors previously assumed to be inoperable. These pivotal accomplishments paved the way for the establishment of our specialty.

Over the past 50 years, increased interest in the discipline of surgical infection has resulted in advances in post-surgical infection control. Early investigations focused on the importance of anaerobic microflora to postoperative infection and paved the way for significant improvements in prophylactic and therapeutic antibiotic treatment of surgical patients. Later research centered on the identification of risk factors to better predict postoperative infection rates. This article reviews the evolution of postoperative infection control and highlights antibiotic prophylaxis in specific clinical situations.

In former times treatment of osteomyelitis was based on very few surgical principles such as incision of the infected region, debridement with sequestrectomy, and continuous drainage to prevent superficial closing of the wound. There were no rules for asepsis, anesthesia, and microbiology in the treatment of bone infection. Therapy improved dramatically when J. Lister introduced and performed antisepsis. With the beginning of the twentieth century it became much more standardized and differentiated. In the 4th decade of the twentieth century, the development of antibiotics changed the regime of osteomyelitis therapy again. Especially systemic intravenous antibiotic therapy was very successful in the treatment of the hematogeneous osteomyelitis. Treatment failed in post-traumatic and postoperative osteitis. Local antibiotic therapy on a delivery system was the breakthrough for these cases. The application of PMMA cement as an antibiotic delivery system led to this new possibility for treating bone infections and is still in use nowadays.

This paper is a brief biography of William Henry Welch, generally considered not only the father of American pathology but also the dean of medicine in the United States during the first quarter of the 20th century. This biography emphasizes Welch's seldom-recognized contribution to the development and understanding of wound and surgical infection that resulted in the delayed universal acceptance of aseptic procedure by surgeons.

Before the days of antisepsis, the infection rate on surgical wards was very high. Mortality from common operations such as limb amputations could run from 40% to 60%, mostly from infection. Hospital gangrene, a type of necrotizing infection, occurred frequently. It would spread rapidly, and the helpless surgeon could do nothing to stop it. The patient would be in agony for many days before death mercifully intervened.

There has always been controversy about the indications for prescribing antibiotics to prevent postoperative sepsis in patients undergoing cranial and spinal surgery. The earlier specialists in infectious diseases warned that the effectiveness of antimicrobial drugs was leading to indiscriminate administration for the prevention of wound infection. Three clinical researchers present a review of the history of prophylactic antibiotic use in neurosurgery, including their own work, and raise a number of ethical issues not previously discussed in the literature about: (1) scientific methodology; (2) random selection; (3) prospective study; (4) blinded control; (5) placebo medication; (6) professional equipoise; (7) statistical analysis; (8) informed consent; (9) utilitarian philosophy; and (10) managed care. Also discussed are the dual role of physician and investigator and the ethical dilemma of depending upon meticulous technique versus adopting regimens of prophylactic antibiotics.