Talk:Surgery/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Surgery. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

I've heard that surgeons have to retire at 60 years-old because they can't keep their hands perfectly still anymore at that age. Is this true? It seems to make sense, older people do seem to have this problem. If this is true, I think it warrants inclusion on this page.

Answer: No, this is not true. Obviously some older people may have this problem, but others will not. In the United States, the Age Discrimination in Employment law prevents forced retirement of older surgeon-employees at hospitals, etc., at some specified age, provided they can continue to do their job, with or without "accommodation." In fact, one "young" surgeon (about 50 years old at the time) had a nervous breakdown in the middle of surgery and walked out, leaving his assistant to finish. While that has nothing to do with wobbly/shakey hands, it does show there are other things for a patient to worry about.

Another answer: No, as a pre-med student, some of the finest surgeons I have met are considered "old". They are extremely skilled and experienced. Think of it this way; have you ever tried to hold your hands perfectly still? No matter how hard you try, gravity will make your hands shake no matter how old you are. Even with mild tremors, an experienced surgeon will still be as effective as he/she was when at a younger age.

Another point - Robotic surgery has made slight tremors less of an issue for surgeons regardless of age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dj321 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"The first surgeons were battlefield doctors in the Napoleonic Wars". This seems improbable. The article itself hints that there were surgeons already in antiquity.
S.

Yes, this is a wrong assertion. Even the ancient egyptians practiced successful brain surgery. Successful,in that their patients survived the procedures, at least sometimes. One ancient skull shows three healed trepannings, with rounded edges, and one fresh trepanning, with recent, square edges, indicating the patient died during, or soon after, surgery.

Where is Ben Carson on your list of noted surgeons?! What about Levi Watkins, the Cardiovascular surgeon?! And what about the surgical pioneer--the first surgeon to successfully perform open-heart surgery on a patient--Dr. Daniel Hale Williams? Your list is corrupt and incomplete

Wouldn't many surgeons object to surgery being called a sub-branch of medicine? In hospitals medicine and surgery are the two largest branchs of healthcare (with say occupational health, alternative healthcare etc being the others). BozMo(talk)

I'm sure some surgeons would object as you suggest. However, if you want to become a surgeon today, you have to qualify in – yes, medicine: a branch of health science concerned with restoring and maintaining health and wellness. The distinction that you draw is actually between surgery and "general" medicine (also termed "internal" medicine in some countries). --Soundray 23:38, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Inserted modern to clarify that Napolean's battlefield doctors were not the first surgeons...for surgery is an ancient practice dating back to prehistorical times, as the archeological evidence shows.icut4u

Actually, it turns out this is a gray area. It depends on how you define surgery, in an operating theatre with an intent to heal. Surgery was primarily done at the location of the patient and as a last resort or kind of experiment, up to the 1840's. Until then it was considered extremely painful and a shot in the dark. Winning the lottery had better chances than surgery, because of infection. So the Napoleonic Wars were really the first period where you could speak of 'an operating theatre' where the patients were brought to the surgeon, and he was helped by assistents and/or nurses. Amputation had a poor survival rate due to gangrene, but some did survive to fight another day. Before this, the 'surgeon' was a man with dental skills (pulling teeth), childbirth (caesarians ended in the death of the mother) skills, or blood letting. Jane 15:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

As you say it depends on how you define surgery...Amputations were performed well before the Napoleonic Wars with patients being brought to the doctor so in that sense surgery probably has been performed since egyptian days or earlier. Homish 01:12, 29 January 2007 (ADST)

The Practice and reputation section is full of non-NPOV and either needs to be brought up to encyclopaedic standard or removed. --Daveb 14:26, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed. --Daveb 09:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I contributed most of that section---except for the last sentence, which was definitely way too POV. Anyway, what was POV about the rest of the section? Every single factual assertion in it is true, at least with regard to surgeons in the United States.

Have you ever worked in the healthcare industry? Do you personally know any surgeons? Have you ever watched a television or a movie with a surgeon as an important character? If you feel that some assertions are untrue if applied to non-American surgeons, please be specific and perhaps we can compromise by adding geographic limitations to qualify my statements.

Otherwise, I'll put the parts that I contributed back into the article in a few days.

--Coolcaesar 01:22, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's see:

• Among all physicians, surgeons tend to be the most highly respected and the highest paid. Really? Do we have a reference to support that statement?
• This could be attributed to the fact that they literally hold a person's life in their hands, while MRI scans and small incisions are the closest that most physicians will get to seeing the insides of their patients. "Hold person's life in their hands" any more so than an intensivist, anesthesiologist, interventional cardiologist, other proceduralist?
• Surgery requires a sound grasp of anatomy, fast diagnostic instincts, steady hands, and superhuman stamina, since one cannot simply drop everything to visit the restroom while performing a heart transplant. Superhuman stamnia? As someone who has spent countless hours at the operating table, I can assure you that the feat is hardly superhuman!
• The top surgery programs in the world reportedly test the stamina of new students by asking them to observe an entire operation from start to end; anyone who leaves early leaves the program. I have never seen or heard of this in practice; again, do you have any real reference to support this statement?
• Unfortunately, because they are members of an elite group, surgeons have a universal reputation for arrogance. Could you define "elite group"? And again, could you somehow support the "universal reputation for arrogance"?
• The stereotype of the "arrogant surgeon" has become a stock figure in entertainment scripts set in hospitals. I will agree that such a figure is often used in fictional entertainment, though what you see on TV is hardly basis for making sweeping and unsupported statements in an encyclopedia.

Summary: Let's stick to the facts.

Cheers, --Daveb 05:45, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really happy with the current list of surgeons just growing unchecked; my opinion is that every Joe Random Surgeon gets added to the list, without any basis for notoriety. I'm not sure how to approach it, though — can we maybe agree on some criteria to list people, or maybe only keep it down to (say) 5 or so really notable and/or historic surgeons? Wikipedia isn't a list dump. Dewet 16:15, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm agree with keeping only a bunch of notable surgeons in this article, but I don't think that the list should be completely removed. I propose to create a new article called List of surgeons or something like that to move the entire current list, leaving in this article only the really notable surgeons. Wikipedia isn't a paper enciclopedia, it don't have space problems. --surueña 20:54, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

I also think that the List of surgeons is the way forward. Yes, Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia in terms of space, but it also is not a repository of links in terms of content. But I'll take a stab at it now. Dewet 06:31, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I had not explained myself correctly. I wanted to say that IMHO this article about surgery shouldn't have a so long list of surgeons, only a few very notable cases, and a long list is OK but if moved to other article. But I forgot to said that that new list should have some added value and not be only an alphabetical list of surgeons, that list already exists at Category:Surgeons (and with no maintenance problems). I don't know how, but maybe in this new article they could be ordered by date showing their achievements. --surueña 07:55, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Good idea. I also thought about the ordering, and considered doing it by country/continent, although it probably would be more useful to do it chronologically. If no-one else tackles this, I'll take a look at it sometime later on... Dewet 08:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've made a few alterations; I have no knowledge of the profession, so I chose a handful of people who have an article with some details, seeming notable (IMO) in some fashion. Dewet 07:51, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why are only the obstetric ones listed here? I am curious what the other most common procedures are...

Yes, the section as it currently exists makes no sense. A statement about the eight most common surgical procedures in the U.S. is followed by a list of five procedures, with no indication of why the other three are omitted. And the list is followed by this sentence: "According to 1996 data from the US National Center for Health Statistics, 40.3 million inpatient surgical procedures were performed in the United States in 1996, followed closely by 31.5 million outpatient surgeries." Why is that sentence even in this section? It has nothing to do with the topic of common surgical procedures; it's just a random (and rather out of date) statistic. Pat Berry 23:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Researchers have also uncovered an Ancient Egyptian mandible, dated to approximately 2750 BC, having two perforations just below the root of the first molar, indicating the draining of an abscessed tooth." - I'm sure I read something in a New Scientist recently about Ancient Egyptian dentistry being massively over-estimated, and that apparent evidence of surgery was in fact just an abscess having increased in size, or similar. Anyone want a look? I think it might have been in the 'Histories' section... --HiddenInPlainSight 09:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This page has a lot about what one might call the social side of surgery, history, accomplishments, most common procedures, eminent surgeons etc. It lacks the scientific side of surgery - what do surgeons actually do and how do they make decisions. On the Talk:Orthopedic surgery page I have posted a template for description of ortho conditions and another for description of ortho procedures. They indicate how orthopaedic surgeons organize their thinking about their subject. Are they relevant here? Are these templates more widely applicable to surgery subjects? Have I missed finding a well accepted wiki template for these subjects? --Mylesclough 03:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I have requested a peer review for the article on Michael Woodruff, a pioneering transplant surgeon. I'm looking for as much feedback and this page seemed like a good place to find people interested in the subject. So, if anyone reading this would please participate at Wikipedia:Peer review/Michael Woodruff/archive1 it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. Cool3 18:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Public domain pictures and diagrams of many forms of surgery are available on the NIH NCI website. See:

• http://visualsonline.cancer.gov/browseaction.cfm?topicid=141 for a list
• http://visualsonline.cancer.gov/about.cfm for licensing info.

Hope that helps, — Catherine\^talk 04:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This citation does not refer to the Ancient India. Drilling and cleaning teeth 9000 years ago (which stopped 1500 years later) apparently predated the Indus Valley Civilization (c.3000 BC) by some 4000 years. (Igny 15:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC))

I have removed the following paragraph, waiting for a clarification and references. I also added citation needed throughout the text.

In 2001, archaeologists studying the remains of two men from Mehrgarh, Pakistan, made the discovery that the people of Indus Valley Civilization, even from the early Harappan periods (c. 3300 BC), had knowledge of medicine and dentistry. The physical anthropologist that carried out the examinations, Professor Andrea Cucina from the University of Missouri-Columbia, made the discovery when he was cleaning the teeth from one of the men (see History of medicine). Later research in the same area found evidence of teeth having been drilled, dating back 9,000 years. [1]

Is there such thing as a Prosthetic Surgeon? A surgeon that deals mainly with all forms of prosthesis? Zachorious 12:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There is orthopedic surgery which deals with prosthesis also. But it could be like the difference between the orthodontists and the technicians who make the crowns/artificial jaws/etc. (Igny 12:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC))

Some surgeons perform a lot of amputations, and have to prepare a suitable stump to take a prosthesis: they are often vascular or trauma specialists, rather than orthopaedic surgeons. Most of the medical practitioners involved with amputees are not surgeons, but specialists in rehabilitation medicine, known in the USA as "physiatrists." Modern prostheses are no longer carved from wood, and may incorporate advanced technology: the technicians ("prosthetists") who make or modify them are qualified to degree level. Bio-engineers are also involved. NRPanikker 02:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

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 (talk • contribs) 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 [2] and psychologically [3] (occasionally deadly [4]). And even in the case of phimosis, there are alternative therapies with none of the side effects. [5] 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. [6] - 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)

A simple google search reveals the following fathers of surgery.

• Abu al-Qasim
• Guy de Chauliac
• Ambroise Pare
• Sushruta

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

Person who chooses Surgery, should be hardworking.

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)

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 Talk:Surgery#Recent expansion of the Surgery article the bottom of this Talk page also. H Padleckas 05:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

---

Link to current Talk:Surgery
Link to current Talk:Surgeon

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 (talk • contribs) 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 [7] and psychologically [8] (occasionally deadly [9]). And even in the case of phimosis, there are alternative therapies with none of the side effects. [10] 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. [11] - 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)

A simple google search reveals the following fathers of surgery.

• Abu al-Qasim
• Guy de Chauliac
• Ambroise Pare
• Sushruta

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

Person who chooses Surgery, should be hardworking.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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. [12][13][14] ADM (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

@user:ADM, while you are free to write an article on nanotechnology applications to surgery, the citations you provide clearly state that nanotechnology is in the future for surgery, not part of current surgical practice.BakerStMD T|C 04:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

(Part of the WikiProject Medicine effort)

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)

• Agree - Makes more sense to have the training to be a surgeon under surgeon than here under surgery. BakerStMD T|C 12:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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)

This didn't seem to be helping in the article:

• • {{DMOZ|Health/Medicine/Surgery/}}

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)

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

It's not a clear distinction. They do operate for cesarians and hysterectomies. In the US, the specialty is formally called "Obstetrics and Gynecology," although people who train in OB/GYN can sub-specialize in, for example, gyne-oncology, urogynecology, maternal-fetal medicine. Gynecology is a lot more like general surgery than OB is, particularly gyne-onc.BakerStMD T|C 12:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Currently Surgical wound is redirecting here. Shouldn't it be redirected to Surgical incision? GoxSox1989 (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree BakerStMD T|C 12:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

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 € <ref>Elektrochirurgie in 3D, Kijk.nl magazine July 2009</ref>

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

Agree BakerStMD T|C 04:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

In England I have seen that other people hold surgeries, such as theatres and MPs.

Hull Truck Theatre: "With a creative surgery, workshops, conversations and events, there are multiple opportunities to grow your creative talent."

Most MPs hold a surgery to give the people in their constituency an opportunity to meet them. http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/surgeries/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.78.75.150 (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, but that seems like a minor use of the term specific to British english. In American english, we call it a "doctor's office" or "clinic" rather than a "surgery". The use by MPs seems to be an extension of the term from the medical context to describe what Americans call "office hours", "drop-in hours", or an "open house". I would favor mentioning that surgery can mean a doctor's office, and not mentioning the use by MPs. BakerStMD T|C 04:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

someone plz help to add into those clip?

Basic Surgery Instruments & Handling
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pI1gVTL07rY

54 BASIC SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1G5d_33q4Y
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.225.100.123 (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The article says "The surgeon will remove hair from the face and eyes, using a head hat." I am puzzled. Does the surgeon or the patient wear the "head hat?" How is it different from a "hat?" Presumably it is not a tool actually used for the hair removal, like scissors, tweezers, a razor, wax, or depilatory cream. I have tagged this as needing a reference and it should be removed from the article unless explained, Wikilinked to an explanation, or followed by an inline reference to a reliable source. I could find nothing helpful online. Edison (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The section goes on to say the hands are washed and gloves are applied, presumably referring to the surgeon and not the patient, so the hair removal could be taken to be removing hair from the surgeon. Certainly in operations on body parts other than the head, no such hair removal is done. When I have had surgery, hair on the operation site was shaved off by a nurse, certainly not by the surgeon himself. The section is puzzling at best. Edison (talk) 17:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I rewrote the first section of "Surgery" for clarity. I removed the part about the surgeon using a "head hat" to remove the patient's or his own hair from the face and eyes, since the requested reference was not provided.Edison (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The whole section was added 19 Feb 2013 by 146.90.53.53 in this edit It included the term "surgeonist." I'm concerned it might be cut and paste from some website, and it is not very encyclopedic for all that.. The whole section uses odd phrasing and does not improve the article:"Whilst in surgery health and safety is used to prevent infection or further spreading of the disease. The surgeonist will remove hair from the face and eyes, using a head hat. Hands, wrists and forearms are washed thoroughly to prevent germs getting into the operated body, then gloves are placed onto the hands. A PVC apron will be worn at all times, to stop any contamination. A yellow substance is lighly coated onto the located area of the patient's body that will be performed on, this stops germs and disease infecting areas of the body, whilst the patient is being cut into.--146.90.53.53 (talk) 14:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)" The IP included his address in the main space of the article. Edison (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I searched Google Books and Google for the phrase, but only found it at sites which appear to have copied it from here. Edison (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The section on surgery previously said that an iodine solution is applied to the surgical site as an antiseptic. That suggests a simple tincture of iodine, which was superseded in the late 20th century by Betadine. The article on Betadine says "Povidone-iodine (PVP-I), brand name Wokadine, Pyodine, and Betadine is a stable chemical complex of polyvinylpyrrolidone (povidone, PVP) and elemental iodine. It contains from 9.0% to 12.0% available iodine, calculated on a dry basis."That article says Betadine was found in the 1950's to be less toxic than tincture of iodine. Iodine had itself replaced 19th century favorites such as carbolic acid used by Lister. Thus there is more in the modern surgical antiseptic swab than just a solution of iodine. But is Betadine the only antiseptic currently used to swab the surgical site, or are there other antiseptics? When I had a skin biopsy recently, the doctor just used an alcohol swab although I understand that alcohol is not that great at killing off all pathogens. Is Betadine or something else used when the surgical site is in the sclera, the rectum, the nasal passages, the throat, or the mouth? References, please. Edison (talk) 19:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The Cochrane review of clean site surgery was updated in 2015. Clean-contaminated surgery is explored in a 2010 systematic review published in the British Journal of Surgery. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks they mention a solution of chlorhexidene in denatured alcohol, which would seem to be more toxic than a solution in ethanol. I also find Triclosan as a surgical scrub, but it is not clear if it is used alone or prior to Betadine. I'm looking less at the question of "what is safe and effective" than the desired "what is typically used" for the present article. Maybe they use one more than another in special cases such as suspected MRSA. Edison (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The lines between surgery and other interventional procedures are more blurred all the time. This should probably be mentioned somewhere. Endoscopy such as ERCP, Interventional radiology, and Invasive cardiology are all not classical surgery, but have some overlap, and some of the same procedures performed by specialists in those fields are performed by surgeons. We should address this in some way. BakerStMD 17:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Surgery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131201231218/http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/MJM/issues/v08n01/crossroads/hong.pdf to http://www.medicine.mcgill.ca/MJM/issues/v08n01/crossroads/hong.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131026210110/http://library.uthscsa.edu/2010/12/john-hunter-%E2%80%9Cthe-father-of-scientific-surgery%E2%80%9D-resources-from-the-collection-of-the-p-i-nixon-library/ to http://library.uthscsa.edu/2010/12/john-hunter-%E2%80%9Cthe-father-of-scientific-surgery%E2%80%9D-resources-from-the-collection-of-the-p-i-nixon-library/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Minor procedure. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiMed Feb-Mar 2022 UCSF SOM

Mon 2/28 Course Day 1

• reviewed Wikiproject Medicine’s website

• completed all 9 required Wiki Ed training modules

• began brainstorming about what article I want to work on this month

Tues 3/1 Course Day 2

• Picked “global surgery” as a potential topic

• Reviewed what is currently written on Wikipedia about global surgery

• Compared the logistics of expanding the global surgery subsection in the “surgery” article vs starting a new “global surgery” article

Fri 3/4 WP-WIP #1

• Begin literature review, start finding reliable sources for citations

• Verify what is already written on Wikipedia with the citations and identify errors and room for expansion (e.g. global surgery being the “neglected step child of global health” is mistakenly attributed to Halfdan T. Mahler instead of Paul E. Farmer who coined the term in his 2008 article “Surgery and Global Health: A View from Beyond the OR”)

Wed 3/9 WP-WIP #2

• Have started revising and writing the introductory paragraph

• Update the statistics from the landmark 2015 Lancet Commission on Global Surgery or newer studies

• Incorporate the Lancet Commission Global Surgery 2030 visions/goals

Wed 3/16 WP-WIP #3

• Seek out a peer reviewer

• Continue to review literature, potentially adding future directions as a conclusion with the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on global surgery

Mon 3/21 WP-WIP #4

• Incorporate peer review feedback

• Begin putting finishing touches by utilizing software such as Grammarly (already have) or Hemingway (new) for readability

Fri 3/25 Course Wrap-up

• Will have published final edits

• Reflect on what I accomplished, learned, will take forward with me into the future, and anything I would have done differently

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 February 2022 and 27 March 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pjypark21 (article contribs).