The historiography of medicine has shifted from narratives of inevitable progress, authored mainly by the medical profession, to a more complex, analytical approach in which historians place medicine in its social context. However, the history of surgery has lagged behind somewhat; Christopher Lawrence suggests this is because the recent focus on the construction of medical knowledge does not incorporate the practical aspects of surgery, which are difficult to extract from their previous linear narrative. Thomas Schlich likewise recognises that surgery is both knowledge and skill—therefore more of a ‘craft’ than medicine. A possible solution is aligning the history of surgery with the history of technology: analysing the interplay of instruments and human activity.
This case study uses the history of endoscopic endonasal pituitary surgery to explore the historiography of surgical innovation, in the context of its heavy reliance on both technology and interdisciplinary divisions of labour. Re-enactment, evolutionary frameworks and using Social Construction of Technology methods all require close collaboration between historian and surgeon to bridge the gap between scholarship and tacit knowledge.
- medical humanities
Data availability statement
Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors KC researched, wrote and edited this paper, accepts full responsibility for its contents and controlled the decision to publish.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.