Surgical endoscopy and sonography. Surgery at the crossroads

The role of the surgeon in the evolution of flexible endoscopy

Several cultures, including the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Arabs, made attempts to view accessible human body cavities using a variety of instruments such as spatulas and specula. The first endoscope was created in 1806 when Phillip Bozzini, a German-born urologist, constructed the lichtleiter, which used concave mirrors to reflect candlelight through an open tube into the esophagus, bladder, or rectum. Maximilian Carl-Friedrich Nitze, another German urologist, produced the first usable cystoscope in 1877 by using series of lenses to increase magnification. He was also the first to place light inside the organ of interest to aid visualization. In 1880 Mikulicz made the first gastroscope using a system similar to Nitze's cystoscope. Modern endoscopy was born with the introduction of the fiberoptic endoscope in the late 1950s. Over the ensuing 50 years endoscopy revolutionized many aspects of the surgeon's practice. Endoscopy can now be used to diagnose and often treat gastrointestinal cancer, hemorrhage, obstruction, and inflammatory conditions. This review was initiated by the SAGES Flexible Endoscopy Committee to chronicle the role of the surgeon in the development and introduction of flexible endoscopy into clinical practice, historically and in contemporary surgery. Flexible endoscopy evolved out of surgeons' need to overcome diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. There have been many recent technological advances that facilitate endoluminal therapies, and flexible endoscopy is now traversing new ground. Surgeons have been major contributors in the development of all aspects of endoscopy. There is a continually expanding list of therapeutic options available to patients. The difficult questions of which procedure, on which patient, and when can be answered best by the surgeon versed in endoscopic, laparoscopic, and open surgical techniques.

Conventional versus laparoscopic cholecystectomy and the randomized controlled trial. Cholecystectomy Study Group

We considered using a randomized trial to assess the value of laparoscopic cholecystectomy in the treatment of symptomatic gallstones. The pros and cons for the timing of such a trial were in favour of not beginning the trial until surgeons learned to use the new procedure safely and effectively, and until key endpoints and outcome indices could be identified and assessed using valid measures. Instead an observational study was implemented to monitor the learning curve of surgeons as they mastered the laparoscopic equipment and procedures, and to assess the responses of the patients to the procedure. In the first 100 patients, the procedure proved to be as safe and feasible to use as conventional surgery, and there were strong benefits in terms of quicker recovery of the patients with less pain, discomfort, and a reduced length of hospital stay. The responses of the surgeons and the patients to the new procedure now place ethical constraints on the planning of a randomized controlled trial. Currently, comprehensive surveillance and monitoring of laparoscopic cholecystectomy is the only realistic method with which to assess the impact of this new technology in our clinic.