Talk:Surgery

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Remove circumcision from the list[edit]

Circumcision is listed among the most common non-obstetric surgeries. That contradicts the very definition of the word:

Surgery [...] is the medical specialty that treats diseases or injuries by operative manual and instrumental treatment.

As such, circumcision can not be listed among surgeries. It is a "treatment" to injure as much as phlebotomy or trepanation -- that is, it actually causes an injure. Circumcision is, in fact, a mutilation, that is:

an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of the (human) body.

- Stormwatch 04:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Answer: No. A circumsicion is 100 percent a surgery. It involves using manual means invasively. The goal of medicine is to improve the quality of life. This includes treating conditions both medicinally and surgically. Although the pubis (foreskin) is not considered a medical condition, the quality of life is improved when it is removed. According to your view on mutilation, cutting your hair can be considered mutilating yourself. Is hair a medical condition? No. It is cut because it improves the quality of life. —This unsigned comment was added by 68.194.1.254 (talkcontribs) 2006 November 20 04:36 UTC.
Care to explain how removing living, functional, protective, and erotically sensitive tissue could ever improve the quality of life? The opposite is true: circumcision is seriously detrimental, physically [1] and psychologically [2] (occasionally deadly [3]). And even in the case of phimosis, there are alternative therapies with none of the side effects. [4] Therefore: circumcision is a mutilation, not a surgery.
Also, your comparison doesn't make sense - hair is made of dead cells. And check a dictionary: you've used a word in a VERY wrong way. [5] - Stormwatch 15:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
The objection goes as follows: The presence of a foreskin is neither a disease nor an injury. Surgery is defined in the article's lead sentence as the "[...] specialty that treats diseases or injuries, [...]" Thus either circumcision, the removal of the foreskin, cannot be surgery under that definition, or the definition is incomplete. This cannot stand. I propose to change the lead sentence to read that surgery "[...] is the medical specialty that performs operative manual and instrumental procedures, often used to treat diseases or injuries, or for religious or cultural reasons." Blackworm 13:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Circumcision should be removed for another reason: You do not need to be trained or educated to do it, see this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=llxSytDu0ek --Validside 05:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In many cases, cosmetic surgery treats neither a disease nor an injury. Removal of duplicate organs from a live person for transplant involvers surgery, but is not a treatment for that person. Many biopsies are done for the sake of diagnosis, but are not treatment in themselves. The definition of surgery may need to be expanded. H Padleckas 05:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I more than support the view of H Padleckas and the examples cited above should be ample reason for expansion of the definition he suggests. The definition is not set in stone! The process has nothing to do with the qualifications of the person who carries out the procedure: tooth extraction, now carried out by dental surgeons used to be carried out by barbers, and emergency surgery, like severing a limb to avoid gangrine etc sometimes by an unqualified person, when no qualified person was available.

LouisBB 15:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you LouisBB, for taking a look at the Surgery article as I was expanding it. I have rewritten the introductory section to expand the definition of surgery somewhat to accomodate the situations I mentioned above, although I admit it is hard to come up with an exact definition. I so wrote this at the start of the "Overview of modern surgery" section I recently added, where I tried to dicuss what surgery is again. Perhaps an exact definition of surgery would be: Surgery is that medical work which surgeons and other doctors call surgery. H Padleckas 03:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The Father of Surgery[edit]

A simple google search reveals the following fathers of surgery.

Do we need an article about that? (Igny 16:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC))

Person who chooses Surgery, should be hardworking.

History[edit]

History is a small part of the topic of "surgery" as a whole - theres a lot to be said on surgery that isn't history. This really deserves its own article. So I've split off History of surgery and summarised it here in summary style.

Obviously now it's created it needs more material added :) FT2 (Talk | email) 10:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Division into Surgery and Surgeon articles[edit]

Although the existing sections in this Surgery article are good, even the fundamentals of modern surgery are hardly covered in this article. Surgery is an important and rather broad topic in modern medicine. I think this article can and should be greatly expanded to cover an overview of modern surgery. Previously Surgeon redirected to this article. Two former sections called "Surgeon titles" and "Noted surgeons" were only about surgeons, not about surgery itself. In order to make room for such an expansion of this Surgery article to cover the topic of surgery itself, I moved these two sections out of this Surgery article to a new article I formed called Surgeon.

Before I moved about 3600 bytes of this article to the new Surgeon article, this article was about 15700 bytes long. It is now about 12100 bytes long. A maximum article length of about 32 KB or less has been mentioned as desirable, although articles can exceed this length. The new surgeon article is not very long, less than 4000 bytes. Either before or after my move to form the new Surgeon article, I now concede there was enough room for a significant expansion of the Surgery article, which I really think would be a good idea. If anybody thinks this move should be reversed, go ahead and recombine Surgeon with Surgery. We would still have about 15 - 16 kB for a serious expansion of this Surgery article. H Padleckas 09:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Surgery has been greatly expanded, and I think the articles should stay separated now. H Padleckas 02:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Offline, I'm close to finishing a serious expansion of this surgery article - a large section called "Overview of modern sugery". When I add my expansion, I will need your help in reviewing it to make sure it is technically sound. H Padleckas 05:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Where are you working on this? On a user sub-page? Chris Cunningham 12:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Offline = On the hard drive of my own computer. Offline, I am still working on overhauling the introductory section. Yesterday, I have already added the large section called "Overview of modern surgery", mentioned above, to which I plan to make a few more rather minor edits to. Go ahead and review the new section and see if it needs any corrections. H Padleckas 20:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you copy this into a sub-page of your user page so that it can be worked on online? This is the conventional approach taken to large edits. Chris Cunningham 16:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I was considering using a sub-page of my user page to write the large section "Overview of modern surgery" for this article. In the end, I just wrote it offline on my hard drive almost completely and decided to upload it directly into this Surgery article. I just recently expanded (rewrote to some extent) the Surgery introductory section and uploaded it directly into the article. Twice before, I have written somewhat lengthy and complicated new articles before first on sub-pages to my user page, and then when they were ready with diagrams and all, I moved them to permanent article status. So I know how to do that. However, I usually write articles or longer sections offline and when they are practically ready, I upload the new contents directly into the article page. I am finished with the introductory section here and almost finished with the new "Overview of modern surgery" section. See soon my new Talk section at the bottom of this Talk page also. H Padleckas 05:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Brief definition of surgeons[edit]

The previous wording read that surgeons are usually physicians. To an Australian physician (sensu stricto) trained in the British terminology, this sounded like a contradiction in terms. Outside North America, the English word 'physician' still retains its older meaning of specialist in internal medicne (archaic = 'physic'). I have edited the entry on physician to this effect. Hence I substituted the more lengthy but quite neutral phrase 'medical practitioner'. However, clicking on this term still redirects to the article on physician.

There is also nothing in this article about the old division of the profession, and that surgeons & physicians once were clearly regarded as separate occupations. The Hippocratic oath enjoins its takers, in the 4th last paragraph, not to cut for the stone (ie, don't do surgery, probably for bladder stones); that is, at the time of the school of Hippocrates, surgery was a separate craft! Maybe the article could do with a note to this effect. --DavidB 12:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hippocratic prohibition is not for surgery in general, but specifically for lithotomy, since there was a specific profession limited to that procedure: much as dentistry became later. NRPanikker 02:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Podiatrists also perform surgery..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.176.131 (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Recent expansion of the Surgery article[edit]

On Aug. 28-29, 2007, I noticed that the Surgery article was deficient in the practical coverage of modern surgery, but had two sections called "Surgeon titles" and "Noted surgeons" which were not about surgery itself but only about surgeons. At that time, Surgeon redirected to Surgery meaning that the article covered both topics. On this Talk page, WikiProject Medicine rated Surgery as "Start-Class" on the quality assessment scale, meaning it could use significant further development. In order to make room for a significant expansion of Surgery which is a broad topic in itself, I divided the article into separate Surgery and Surgeon articles. I moved the two sections about surgeons ("Surgeon titles" and "Noted surgeons") to the new Surgeon article. I noted on this Talk page under Division into Surgery and Surgeon articles that I had so divided the article. On Aug. 30, 2007, I then wrote small sections called "Surgery article" on both the WikiProject Medicine Talk and WikiProject Clinical medicine Talk pages saying that the Surgery article was inadequate in the describing modern surgery and asked if anyone was working on expanding the Surgery article. The only response I received was from User:MastCell saying that I should "go for it" (and a link to "be bold"), effectively suggesting that I expand the article myself. After practically two months of waiting for someone to address the problem, no one had done anything of real substance.

I went ahead and wrote an expansion for Surgery in the form of a new section I call "Overview of modern surgery", which I uploaded to the article on Oct. 30, 2007. On Nov. 2, 2007, I expanded/clarified the Surgery introductory section. For now, I'm finished with the introductory section and almost finished with "Overview of modern surgery". I would like to note there is already a separate History of surgery article, so further expansion on the History of surgery can be done there. The "History" (of surgery) section in the Surgery article is well-developed, perhaps even longer than necessary, particularly since there already is a History of surgery article. About 5 kB remain in Surgery for further expansion until reaching the desirable but non-binding 32 kB limit. It is not possible to cover all aspects and types of surgery in depth in 32 kB and it is not my intention to do so. Instead, Surgery covers fundamentals common to multiple types of Surgery and serves as a tie-together article containing links to more specific topic articles on surgery, where details on specific kinds of surgery can be covered in depth.

I think the revised Surgery article, which covers a high-importance topic in medicine, will soon be ready for a peer review. Review of Surgery could even start now. Upon finishing a peer review, Surgery could be re-assessed to a higher rating by the WikiProject. When I get a chance, perhaps towards the end of November, I plan to archive much of this Talk page to Talk:Surgery or Surgeon/ Archive since it is getting a bit long and many discussions are old and moot or relevant only to Surgeons. The Talk:Surgeon page will also have a link to it. H Padleckas 06:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I have edited and divided the above-mentioned "Overview of modern surgery" section I wrote to include two subsections in it. For the time being I am finished with this section and practically finished with this Surgery article as a whole. I consider that as a result of this major expansion, the Surgery article is ready for peer review and then re-assessment. If anybody wants to review and make any [beneficial] edits, please go ahead. H Padleckas 02:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Finally, I archived 16 sections from this Talk page to Talk:Surgery or Surgeon/ Archive, although the last 5 "overlapping" sections also remain here to help with continuity of the discussion. The Talk:Surgeon page was also given a link to this Talk archive page.
H Padleckas (talk) 13:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

On Anesthesia[edit]

The article says: Anesthesia is administered to prevent pain from incision, other tissue cutting and suturing, etc. Although in theory it may sometimes be possible to operate without anesthesia, in most surgeries the pain would be unbearable and a patient would not hold sufficiently still for a surgeon to precisely operate.

Circumcision is listed in the article as a surgery. Infant male circumcision is routinely performed with no anesthesia, which seems to contradict the quoted section above. Does anyone have suggestions as to how we can bring the quote in line with reality in light of this fact? It seems horrifying to say "Anesthesia is administered only optionally if the patient is an infant male undergoing circumcision, since strapping the infant down is cheaper and culturally accepted" even though this is the truth. I'm sure someone can come up with a way to fix the quote without making the medical profession look like a bunch of charlatans, so therefore I encourage responses. Thanks! Blackworm (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Immobilization during surgery[edit]

This article does not mention immobilization during surgery (when patients are are strapped to the surgical table). It would be nice to know when is it performed and for what reasons. --193.198.16.211 (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine that for the majority of operations where the patient needs to remain still the effect could be achieved with muscles relaxants. However perhaps if this was contraindicated (e.g. in patients suffering from butyrylcholinesterase defficiency) then they could be strapped down. JimBrownish (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Immobilizing a patient during surgery is done for the safety of the patient. The use of safety straps during surgery is similar to the use of seat-belts in a car. Sometimes during surgery the surgical table needs to be tilted to one side, and without the use of a safety strap, gravity could cause the patient to roll off the surgical table. Also as the patient is "waking-up" from anesthesia, they sometimes try to roll onto their side, and on the very narrow surgical table this could result in the patient rolling off the table.--Daniela T. RN (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Broken External Link - edit[edit]

The external link to "Surgery Videos" (http://www.surgery-sugery.com/lasik-surgery.php) appears to be broken. The latest snapshot for the page on the Wayback Machine was in Feb. '08. Unless there are any objections I think this link should be removed. JakeMul (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

--> Also, in "History" a right square bracket has been omitted, thus having [[Egypt] appear in the text.

Semi-Protection[edit]

Why is this page semi-protected? I couldn't find anything in the talk logs about it.--Adam in MO Talk 04:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Can someone advise how to figure out why pages are protected and when they will be unprotected? Is the reason disclosed, or is it, so far as can be determined by a nonparty, simply at the whims of the person protecting? If it isn't policy allready, wouldn't it be a good idea to require the reasons for protection to be stated on the talk page? The protection policy states consensus should be reached regarding the need. How could this ever occur if the reasons for protection are a mystery because the protecting person has failed to provide any information as to why the patge is protected? It seems quite silly, are we supposed to debate imagined reasons and come to consensus on those? Anyways, as their is not noted reason to protect the page, and no reason that appears to require protection, I urge unprotection.--24.29.234.88 (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Modern Surgery[edit]

In the section "Modern Surgery", both the heading "Pain" and the information under it appear twice.Mister Killam (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Surgery room[edit]

It should be mentioned that Surgery clothing is essential in surgery and keeps dust spread to 100000 particles per person (as opposed to 7,5 million particles pp). This limits growth possibility of bacteria, viruses.

to decrease dust to 3500 dust particles over operating room over the surgical table.

It should be mentioned that the newest surgery rooms are equipped with

  • green highfrequency lightning and durable white Xenon lights (first is needed for minimal invasive operations where the doctor uses screens and operates at same time, latter is for surgery without screens, eg more invasive surgeries)
  • Airfilters are (often EPA or better; cost: 500000 € per OR)

It should be mentioned that a operating room often costs up to 1 million € [1]

The points about surgery rooms could be added to the Operating theater (Operating room) article. H Padleckas (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Nano-surgery[edit]

The development of nanotechnology has had a noticeable impact on surgery techniques. Perhaps there should be an entry on the topic of nano-surgery which would present these new methods. [6][7][8] ADM (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Surgery as an act is uncountable![edit]

Please note that you cannot say "surgeries" to mean surgical operations/interventions as it is an uncountable noun in this case, see here http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/surgery, so I'm going to modify the three instances of this. That's all folks Captain Screebo (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd edition, differs. Certainly this use of the term "surgery" (e.g., "The patient had already undergone three surgeries") is widespread in current usage. (Speaking of countable and uncountable...anybody know how you can get an aleph without causing whatever editor you're using to go into backward (right-left) mode?)
"Ending a sentence with a preposition is something up with which I will not put." —Sir Winston Churchill
Mia229 (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Fact and citation check[edit]

(Part of the WikiProject Medicine effort)

Lead section[edit]

A citation or two for the derivation of the term “surgery” would be nice.

Since this article is about the medical specialty (as indicated at the top of the page), there should be a description of what training is required (for example, in medical school and the program, etc.).

It would be a good idea to put that in the Surgeon article. The Surgeon article is rather short and could use some expansion. H Padleckas (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Definitions of surgery[edit]

A good citation here would be good; see: http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=5603

Principles of aseptic technique should be referenced; see: http://www.surgeryencyclopedia.com/A-Ce/Aseptic-Technique.html

The ASA classification system should be referenced; see: http://www.asahq.org/clinical/physicalstatus.htm

A general surgical reference text may be useful to support the general surgical process. One can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=node%3D465600&field-keywords=surgery

History[edit]

Reference needed for evidence of surgery in Ancient Egypt; see: http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/medicine.htm

There should also be citations for evidence of surgery in Ancient India, China, and Greece: see: http://www.unitedindia.com/medicine.htm, http://www.china.org.cn/2007-01/26/content_1197626.htm, and http://www.schoolshistory.org.uk/gcse/medicine/ancientgreece.htm

References for the history of surgery in Europe would also be helpful.

There should be citations in the sections about Pain (http://neurosurgery.mgh.harvard.edu/History/ether3.htm and http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/snow_john.shtml ) and Infection (http://www.semmelweis.org/about/dr-semmelweis-biography/, http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Joseph_Lister, and http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Louis_Pasteur) in the section on Modern surgery.

I think that the article has been much improved to make this more global and not US-centric.BSW BV (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Misusing of refs[edit]

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source. I searched the page history, and found 13 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Surgical specialties[edit]

Aren't obstetricians surgeons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.43.51 (talk) 10:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles or terms for consented-to and not-consented to surgeries[edit]

I am wondering if these exist. 'Consent' is an issue mentioned sparsely here, but it important in relation to many controversies. I think it would be valuable to have a section or article explaining the terms for these kinds of procedures.

I initially thought elective surgery referred to consented-to surgery but as I read more it seems maybe it might only refer to a specific kind of consented-to surgery and that there are other types as well? What is the antonym here, surgeries done without consent? Not emergency for certain, since non-consented surgeries are also done in non-emergencies. Ranze (talk) 03:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Safety[edit]

Even though patient safety is very important, the safety of surgeons and nurses is important as well. Therefore I suggest adding a respective section to the article. One of the general risks is infection through contact to the blood of the patient. Some diseases can be communicated even by means of blood splashes to e.g. the eyes of the surgeon. As a safety measure, surgeons as advised to wear appropriate glasses. Some surgical disciplines frequently use X rays. Heart surgeons specialized in treating children are prone to developing left sided brain tumors because of scatter radiation. Orthopedia and trauma surgeons are also exposed to more scatter radiation than average surgeons. Not only surgeons are at risk, but nurses also - the closer to the X ray source the more. Pia F. Bichsel (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).