Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, London, W12 0HS, UK.
Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9DW, UK.
J R Soc Med. 2022 Dec;115(12):460-468. doi: 10.1177/01410768221133568. Epub 2022 Nov 21.
In the 18th century, anatomy was the principal science underlying surgical practice. Over the next three centuries, the scientific basis of surgery changed dramatically. Morbid anatomy led to the understanding of organ-based pathologies that allowed surgeons to remove, reconstruct and in some cases replace internal organs. In the 19th century, the new science of microbiology facilitated antisepsis, then asepsis as surgery progressed from a craft to a scientific discipline. Yet many surgeons believed that surgery was not merely a science but also an art, in which the creativity of the doctor was necessary for progress. Surgical advancement depended on creative individuals with innovative flair, prepared to pioneer often risky procedures in the face of mainstream opposition. The 20th century saw a series of changes that made such individualism more difficult. 'Scientific Management' when applied to surgery decreed that procedures be performed according to predetermined schedules, a drive to uniformity producing better outcomes and diminishing individual variation. Yet inventive individuals continued to produce surgical advances. In the 21st century, moves toward standardisation developed further. The escalating safety culture in surgery moderates the introduction of novel, potentially riskier procedures, while more and more regulation increasingly requires surgeons to adhere to guidelines and protocols, further restricting surgical individualism. Moreover, the role of the individual is further diminished, as surgical care is delivered by teams, both in deciding management in major cases and in the operating theatre. The introduction of robotics into surgery has led to the suggestion that the role of the surgeon may become that of a technician. Will these constraints, and greater patient involvement in decisions, allow tomorrow's surgeons the freedom to innovate? We believe that the pioneering spirit, imagination and flair will not be lost. Tomorrow's surgeons must remain doctors, showing the compassion and empathy that robots cannot provide.
在 18 世纪,解剖学是外科实践的主要科学基础。在接下来的三个世纪里,外科手术的科学基础发生了巨大的变化。病理解剖学使人们了解了基于器官的病理学,这使得外科医生能够切除、重建,在某些情况下还能替换内部器官。19 世纪,新的微生物学科学促进了抗菌法,随后是无菌操作,随着外科手术从一门手艺发展成为一门科学学科。然而,许多外科医生认为,外科不仅是一门科学,也是一门艺术,医生的创造力对于进步是必要的。外科手术的进步取决于具有创新天赋的有创造力的个体,他们准备在面对主流反对意见时开创具有风险的手术。20 世纪发生了一系列变化,使得这种个人主义更加困难。“科学管理”应用于外科手术,规定手术要按照预定的时间表进行,这种统一化的推动力产生了更好的结果,减少了个体差异。然而,有创造力的个体继续推动外科手术的进步。21 世纪,标准化的趋势进一步发展。外科手术中不断升级的安全文化减缓了引入新的、潜在风险更大的程序的速度,而越来越多的监管法规要求外科医生遵守指南和规范,进一步限制了外科手术的个人主义。此外,由于手术护理由团队提供,无论是在重大病例的管理决策中,还是在手术室中,个体的作用进一步减弱。机器人技术在外科手术中的应用导致有人提出,外科医生的角色可能会变成技术员。这些限制因素和更多的患者参与决策是否会让明天的外科医生有自由创新的空间?我们相信,开拓精神、想象力和天赋不会消失。明天的外科医生必须仍然是医生,展现出机器人无法提供的同情心和同理心。