Archive for the ‘medicine’ Category

Another surgical innovation ?

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2008

Today, I read about a new approach to abdominal surgery that had never occurred to me before. It is called “NOTES” or Natural Orifice Transluminal Surgery, and the application being described is removing the gallbladder through the mouth. Why anyone would want to do that is a mystery to me. Laparoscopic surgery was a huge advance, both for patients’ comfort and, once the learning curve was behind, for safety and postop recovery. The trans-gastric approach seems awfully difficult. The Wall Street Journal refers to trans-vaginal surgery, which has been a preferred method for some procedures for many decades. Hysterectomy and tubal ligation are two examples.

There are other examples of this sort of approach. For example, the pituitary gland is usually approached through the nose. The maxillary sinus is approached through the mouth going above the upper teeth. Both of these routes avoid scarring and are the most direct. There are also trans-anal approaches to some types of rectal tumors and drainage of pelvic abscess can also be done very easily by that route. Once again, it is the most direct and avoids a big incision. Another major operation done through a natural orifice is transurethral resection of the the prostate, or TURP. This and cystoscopy, examination of the urinary bladder by a scope introduced through the urethra, are the majority of urological surgery.

This trans-oral, trans-gastric approach to the gall bladder seems an awfully roundabout approach for little benefit. Laparoscopic surgery is hard enough to learn. This week I take my students to the Surgical Skills Center and we will see if we can do some laparoscopic simulation. I’ll have to see the other in action before I can get enthusiastic about it.

A few bits about our military

Friday, April 11th, 2008

This letter by an Australian soldier is nice as it gives an image of our military that we don’t often see. Too bad so many people in this country can’t see it.

This video of the new prosthetic arm that has been invented for wounded soldiers is fantastic.

Just a couple of things of interest.

Then, there is an explanation by someone who really knows and has no political ambitions although, if he did, I would be a contributer, just as I am now.   Then, of course, there are the silly vanities of the left who know nothing of the military or any serious institution.

More Hillary lies

Saturday, April 5th, 2008

Hillary Clinton is now telling a story on the campaign trail that appears to be a lie. The story is about a pregnant woman turned away by a hospital in Ohio because she was uninsured and did not have $100. The trouble is that the story, if true, would result in severe federal criminal prosecution of the hospital and any doctors involved. That is because the law, called EMTALA or Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, does not allow any hospital emergency room to turn away a pregnant woman because of inability to pay.

Emergency medical condition means—

(i) Placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy;

This is the language of the Act.

More important in this particular case is the fact that the woman was not turned away and she did have insurance. Apparently, both the woman and the child eventually died but there is doubt that the hospital was in any way at fault. Just as in the case of Al Gore in 2000 with his dog’s arthritis medicine and a few other tall tales, fact checking is something Hillary feels is unnecessary

The second era of bacteriology

Wednesday, March 26th, 2008

The history of medicine, as distinct from surgery, took giant steps in the 19th century when bacteria were identified and then linked to human illness. Surgery had been able to treat battle wounds for centuries although bacteriology would also lead to major advances there. For the medical doctor, however, there was little that could be accomplished for the sick prior to Louis Pasteur. Medicine in that era was concerned with diagnosis and prognosis, a significant benefit if accurate, which it sometimes was. Treatment was more harmful than effective.

William Withering had introduced the first effective medicine in 1785.

Paracelsus had discovered that mercury would inhibit syphilis in the 14th century but that was the only previous effective use of medicine. It was said, in an era when syphilis was endemic, that “A night with Venus leads to a lifetime with Mercury” as the treatment required continuous use to be effective. There would be no other treatment for syphilis until the 20th century.

Edward Jenner discovered the ability of cowpox infection to prevent the far more dangerous infection of smallpox. These few pioneers were bright supernovae in a dark universe of ignorance. Infectious diseases were the most common cause of death prior to this century.

Louis Pasteur

Louis Pasteur was a chemist who first recognized that living organisms were responsible for such phenomena as fermentation of wine and souring of milk. His research resulted in an age of bacteriology for the next 50 years.

Robert Koch

Robert Koch was a German physician who learned to grow bacteria in cultures that could be purified and subcultured. He established the principles of infection by a specific organism. Pasteur grew bacteria in liquid medium that did not lend itself to purifying cultures. Koch began the use of solid medium and his assistant invented the Petri dish. Koch also discovered the organism that causes cholera, which cannot be grown in artificial culture. It lives only in the human intestine and is transmitted in water supplies contaminated by fecal material.

John Snow

John Snow the founder of epidemiology (along with Florence Nightingale), had identified the connection of cholera to water supplies in 1859 but he could not go further because bacteria had not yet been discovered.

The microscope, especially after improvements by Joseph Jackson Lister allowed these men to see the bacteria in wounds, diseased organs and rotting flesh. Lister’s son would add the first great step in treating these diseases.

Joseph Lister

Joseph Lister, the son, was an orthopedic surgeon who learned to prevent infection by applying carbolic acid to compound fracture wounds after the fracture had been reduced. Lister was still somewhat vague about the organisms he was treating because they were still poorly visualized. In fact, that lack of proof caused great resistance to his innovation.

Hans Christian Gram

In 1884, Hans Christian Gram discovered that some bacteria would stain blue with crystal violet and that this characteristic was related to other features of the organism. A powerful new tool was available to bacteriologists called Gram staining.

The era of the bacteriologist reached its pinnacle when Koch described the tuberculosis organism in 1882 , proving that “consumption” was an infection, and then Pasteur was able to prevent rabies with a vaccine. Unfortunately, Koch’s career ended with a bit of farce as he announced a cure for tuberculosis that was, in fact, no such thing. He fled with a girlfriend to Egypt proving there is nothing new under the sun. His other innovations survived.

Domagk

Vaccines would dominate medicine until the discovery of antibiotics, first by Domagk, , when he discovered the sulfa drugs in 1937. A German physician, he was not permitted by Hitler to accept the Nobel Prize and was awarded the Prize after the war.

Alexander Fleming

Even before Domagk’s discovery, in 1928, Alexander Fleming had discovered penicillin but did not follow up his discovery after a few tentative attempts at treatment.

Howard Florey

Ten years later, Howard Florey, an Australia physician at Oxford, resumed study of penicillin with the result that infectious diseases caused by bacteria would recede into a secondary role in medicine. Other antibiotics were discovered and new ones continue to be synthesized. Cancer, and other degenerative diseases, became the most common causes of death.

The New Era

Carl Woese

In 1977, a microbiologist named Carl Woese proposed a new kingdom of biology. It was called Archaea and he met considerable resistance at first. They are also called Extremeophiles as they were often found in extreme environments such as steam vents on the ocean floor, or in national park geysers, with temperatures at far above boiling. Bacteria and most other forms of life could not exist there because proteins denature at temperatures well below those found in these environments. However, it was soon found that these organisms are widely distributed and some are quite common, such as Methanococcus, which makes swamp gas by metabolizing rotting vegetation and producing methane gas. Some varieties are even found in the gut of cows.

The genomes of over 50 varieties have now been sequenced and similarities with higher life forms have been found, placing them between the bacteria and higher forms. They may well represent the first life forms and there is a possibility that similar organisms may be found on other planets. Since some of these organisms are capable of synthesizing carbon chains, like those in oil, the secret of the energy crisis may be found here. Some of them are capable of scrubbing CO2 from the exhaust of coal burning power plants. Some are capable of making methane (natural gas) from coal without burning at all. This may even be possible without digging up the coal. For example, it is now known that Archaea organisms are still making methane in abandoned coal mines. This creates danger for anyone entering these old mines but may provide a source of natural gas from residual coal that was left behind. In the future, it may be possible to inject coal deposits with the culture of Archaea and collect the gas without ever digging a mine or stripping surface layers above the coal.

The possibility of processing nuclear waste should not be ignored. The organism survives in a high radiation environment and other Archaea are capable of generating electricity in fuel cells

The future is with biotechnology and the limits are not yet visible. We are entering the second Age of Bacteriology

More concerns about government health care

Monday, March 24th, 2008

I have previously written that I think we will eventually have some sort of government program that provides minimum care for everyone. Several recent articles emphasize some of my concerns about government programs. One , from the National Health Service, discusses a shortage of maternity care. In the US, this sort of thing would be a felony. Another, mentions the government’s deplorable practice of cutting doctor fees when fewer and fewer doctors are willing to care for the poor because the fees are so low now. When I was in practice, I saw MediCal patients, just as many of my colleagues did, but we would not allow our names on the MediCal panel of providers. We would see patients as a favor for other doctors or if they were relatives of other patients. Of course, as director of a Trauma Center, I saw many MediCal patients but we did not advertise our availability.

Then, of course, there are the stories like this. That may sound apocryphal but I have seen similar things many times.

Then there are a few brave souls who speak up and suffer the consequences. In a private system, lawsuits would result but a government system has no such vulnerability.

Anyway, these are cautions for those whose enthusiasm gets beyond the reality of dealing with the government.

Craig Venter

Thursday, March 20th, 2008

Bradley Fikes and I spent the afternoon at UCSD to hear Craig Venter speak. I was not disappointed. I wrote the first review on Amazon of his autobiography and he knew this today, commenting that it was the most credited as “helpful.” His accomplishments go well beyond medicine although that seems to be the part that fascinates reporters.

He discussed the sequencing of the genome but the most important part is the environmental potential of his work. For example, the methanobacteria are now properly known as Methanococci as they are now known to be a member of Archaea, a new kingdom of life. If you really want to know about Archaea,
this is the source
, although a PDF version can be downloaded and printed. These organisms can exist at the extremes of nature, such as steam vents on the ocean floor.

Some of them are capable of regenerating oil or natural gas from CO2. Some can metabolize coal in underground deposits and release methane gas. Some can metabolize sulfuric acid and release metallic sulfur and water. Some bacteria can generate nanowires and potentially function as a battery with electricity generation from animal waste.

Some of them will take up uranium and some may even be able to metabolize radioactive elements. Some may function as a bacterial fuel cell. Some of these fuel cells involve bacteria with nanowires. These systems are getting close to practical use.

The great advantage of all of these systems is that energy inputs are far less than the inorganic equivalent, such as burning or conversion to ethanol of plant substrate. The bacterial systems can convert the substrate directly to methane or a higher carbon molecule by enzyme action that takes place at ambient temperature.

Methane has one carbon. Ethane has two and octane, the ideal form of gasoline, has eight. These systems may be the way to refine tar sands or high sulfur crude oil that is not yet economical to use as fuel. Some of them will make fuel from waste. Some may even reduce nuclear waste to safe deposits that do not require isolation.

Right now, Venter is working on ways to analyze the genome of organisms with exotic properties and transfer the gene to more common or faster growing organisms. His company is called Synthetic Genomics. and is in southern California. He has other companies in the east but this application is more important, I think, than the medical applications right now. He calls it “digitizing life” and says that creating a synthetic chromosome is not difficult. The problem is “rebooting it.” He is about to announce an artificial bacterium and I thought the announcement might come today. It will be soon.

We’ll see what the next steps are.

Lies in the service of policy

Tuesday, March 11th, 2008

Politics has always been infested with lies. As it becomes more important in our daily lives, those lies become more significant. Woodrow Wilson said he would keep us out of war. He lied although there is some possibility that he believed it when he said it. Roosevelt said something similar but there is no chance that he believed what he was saying. A few years ago, the issue of minimum wage was influenced by a published report which purported to prove that raising minimum wages, contrary to economic theory, would not increase unemployment for low income workers. The study was deeply flawed but it has remained a popular basis for those who wish to justify the policy of raising the minimum wage.

Now, the major domestic issue that influences public policy is immigration. Sure enough, a new study has appeared that purports to show illegal immigration raises average wages for the native-born poor. Once again, it has been shown that the study in question is bogus.

I’ve always been a little skeptical of the Ottaviano-Peri evidence. A couple of years ago, Jeff Grogger, Gordon Hanson, and I worked on a paper that examined the link between immigration and African-American economic status. As a by-product of that work, we explicitly attempted to replicate the Ottaviano-Peri finding–but couldn’t. Since then, we’ve been quite interested in trying to see what explains the discrepancy between our evidence and theirs.

Then they found why the discrepancy existed. The other authors had doctored the data.

The Ottaviano and Peri data includes currently enrolled high school juniors and seniors. They classify these high school juniors and seniors as part of the “high school dropout” workforce. Their finding of immigrant-native complementarity disappears if the analysis excludes these high school juniors and seniors.

Things that seem too good to be true usually aren’t.

This is not a new phenomenon. I saw something very similar in surgery 30 years ago. At one time, there was a flurry of interest in what was called “The no-touch technique” in colon cancer surgery. The principal author was George Crile Jr, often known as “Barney” Crile. His father had founded the Cleveland Clinic and was a famous pioneer surgeon. The son had ambitions to emulate his famous father and had become a senior surgeon in the clinic his father had founded. He published the “no-touch technique” study when I was a resident in surgery and we all immediately adopted the method as Crile’s study suggested a significant improvement in survival of the patients. Years after it was shown to be a fraud, it is still being studied. It is difficult to find the original paper anymore but it is still being referred to proudly in Cleveland Clinic literature. In that account, Rupert Turnbull is credited with the development of the technique, which involved isolating and ligating the veins from the colon before the tumor bearing area was touched or dissected. It made sense logically in that tumor cells were thought to flow in the venous blood to the liver where they lodged and became metastases. By ligating the veins first, tumor cells disturbed by manipulating the tumor would not escape and flow to the liver. Every surgeon who did colon cancer surgery adopted it.

A few years later, I attended the GI cancer postgraduate course at the American College of Surgeons annual meeting. One of the items on the program was a study of the effect of injecting 5-FU, a chemotherapy drug, into the colon before removing the tumor. The theory here was that the chemotherapy drug would flow, in the same distribution of portal vein blood as the cancer cells, toward the liver. It was a reasonable premise but the study produced one of the most dramatic scenes I have ever witnessed in a medical meeting.

The senior author was describing the 5FU study and pointed out that the control group for his study was the same as that for the “no touch” study. The veins were not ligated until the colon and tumor had been completely dissected. Any tumor cells that would tend to break off and flow to the liver should make the control group results worse than the no-touch treatment group and similar to the control group of the Crile study. In fact, that did not happen. The control group of the 5FU study did as well at five years as the treated group of the no-touch study and the control group of the no-touch study had a significantly lower survival than any of the three other groups. Why ?

The senior author of the 5FU study answered the question for all of us right then and there. He had contacted the Cleveland Clinic statistician to learn why the results were so different and he finally figured out what had happened.

All medical studies that involved time-survival statistics use what are called “time-life tables.” These are usually generated by actuaries for life insurance companies. Over five years, a certain percentage of people will die of various causes and the percentage who die is based on their age and sex and other factors that these tables consider. Any medical study that considers survival over five years or longer must use these tables to be valid statistically. Some people will die from causes unrelated to the treated condition and these must be allowed for.  You have to correct your results for the normal death rates or you will show more deaths in the treated group (and control group) than can be attributed to the disease you  are studying. The 5FU study author had learned that Crile, who had written the “no-touch” paper, had used time-life tables for the treated group in his study (thus improving the survival) but not for the control group. This is not poor statistical method; it is lying. He twisted the data to make his study look like progress in cancer treatment. In fact, there was no benefit to the early ligation of the veins. Cancer is not affected by those theoretical considerations, probably because host resistance is far more important.

Rupert Turnbull, a justifiably famous colon and rectal surgeon, was in the audience at that conference and the author of the 5FU paper invited him to comment. Turnbull declined, saying that they would have to “ask Dr. Crile about methods.” Crile was not there and nothing further was said but the tension was tremendous. Turnbull was, no doubt, humiliated but everybody knew about Barney Crile and his obsession to surpass his father. There were questions about his earlier work on breast cancer and the validity of his papers on that subject. Ironically, his son, a journalist and author of “Charlie Wilson’s War” would become more famous. Also ironic is the fact that CBS was successfully sued for libel by General Westmoreland because of a George Crile III report on Vietnam. Maybe that’s another family tradition; manipulating data.

Isn’t it interesting that the “no-touch” technique is still being promoted as a science breakthrough 30 years after the study was shown to be a fraud? I suspect that few people who were not at that American College of Surgeons meeting are aware of what happened. I suspect the other fraudulent studies will be influencing public policy years from now, as well.

I have been called a cynic.

More evidence of the deterioration of the Lancet

Tuesday, February 26th, 2008

Today the New York Times describes more politicization of science by the Lancet. The cause is female genital mutilation and results are subjected to statistical manipulation to attain “correct” results. Now if they would only turn their attention to gun crime and global warming.

Airborne emergencies

Monday, February 25th, 2008

I was on a flight to Baltimore in October 2006 during which we had two emergencies in the air. On both occasions, the stewardess asked if there was a doctor on the flight and several responded before I could get out of my seat so I was an observer. We landed at Kansas City to disembark one ill passenger and then landed again to disembark the other. My non-stop flight turned into a day-long marathon but both passengers survived although I’m not sure that both situations were life threatening. That was a Southwest Airlines flight and the situations were handled efficiently.The passenger on an American Airlines flight from Haiti was not so lucky. She died after two oxygen bottles were found to be empty and a defibrillator may not have worked. A doctor was present and declined to comment but we will probably hear more about this.Airline travel when I took my first flight in 1957 was a bit exotic. Nowadays, it is the equivalent of the Greyhound bus in “It Happened One Night.” Airborne emergencies happen all the time and the cabin pressure at 5,000 feet can be dangerous to some passengers with marginal cardiac or pulmonary function. Airlines must be more responsible than this story suggests American was.

Health Reform IV

Tuesday, February 19th, 2008

This is not going to be the full story as I just don’t have the time right now but there are a few items that I will try to add as I go along. The fee-for-service system served us well until about 1950. Paul Starr’s book, The Social Transformation of American Medicine, does a good of of telling the history. We must remember that doctors were unable to do much to influence the course of disease until 1900. Surgery came ahead of medicine here and, by 1867, a surgeon did more good than harm in most cases. That was the year that Lord Lister published his revolutionary paper on the prevention of infection. In 1905, John B Murphy published a chapter in WW Keen’s American Textbook of Surgery that defined the condition of acute appendicitis and explained how to make the early diagnosis.

I had a patient one time whose appendix had been removed in 1905 when he was 15. He complained to me about the appearance of the scar. I told him to just be grateful for a surgeon in Denver (where he lived at the time) who knew enough to get him through.

By 1945, antibiotics, first sulfa drugs, then penicillin, had cut the mortality rate of pneumonia from 30% to 5% in England. In 1948, Waksman had discovered that streptomycin cured tuberculosis. That was as great a triumph as that of Fleming and Florey, who discovered and purified penicillin. Consumption (tuberculosis) was the great scourge of civilization dating back to the invention of agriculture. Now medicine could really do something and the value of medical care, as opposed to health care, was rising.

When I was a medical student in 1962, the coronary care unit was not a feature of medicine. The Massachusetts General Hospital did not have a surgical ICU. There were no total hip replacements and no coronary bypass surgeries. In 1967, one of the great heroes of medical care (and unknown) Rene Favaloro performed the first coronary bypass surgery in man. Five years later, when I was a cardiac surgery trainee, it was becoming a common operation and ten years later, there were 70,000 performed in the US. By 2002, there were 657,000 CABG procedures in the US in spite of the fact that an alternative procedure, angioplasty and stenting, had appeared. Technology was racing ahead of any attempt to control it. CABG made people live longer. Total hip replacement, followed by total knee replacement, made the life more enjoyable. The level of medical care intensified. Cost quickly followed.

Fee-for-service medicine had a fatal flaw once it was combined with health insurance. Health insurance appeared during the 1930s. In Dallas, in 1929, the school teachers contracted with Baylor University to provide health care for their members. This was the beginning. In the 1930s, California doctors formed a group plan to provide medical care in return for a monthly fee of two dollars. The hospital associations had already followed the Dallas initiative and formed Blue Cross. Both of these programs were in response to the Depression when people had less money to spend on health care and the concept of insurance became more attractive. When combined with fee-for-service, a serious problem resulted.

In the new system, the patient was not responsible for the cost of his own health care. The doctor had a relationship with the patient but, until about 1978, the insurance companies were passive partners. This was true for several reasons. One, Blue Cross was owned by the hospitals and Blue Shield was owned by the medical associations. They were non-profit corporations, different in each state, and the boards of directors were dominated by providers, doctors or hospitals. Large insurance companies had also entered the business of health care in the late 1940s but they dealt with large corporations that bought coverage for their own employees, or with unions that had coverage for members, paid by employers. The employers and union officers were powerful as customers. For years, little scrutiny was devoted to the details of the care provided and increased costs were handled by increasing premiums. High technology and an aging population would shatter this complacency.

The advent of Medicare in 1965 brought a new player to the table. Lyndon Johnson, in order to assuage the fears of doctors about government medicine, adopted the solution of Aneurin Bevan, who wrote the legislation for the National Health Service in England in 1945. Beven said “He filled their mouths with gold,” referring to objections of hospital specialists to the NHS. That link, by the way, has an excellent summary of the issue of single payer health care. Johnson followed Bevan’s advice and made physician compensation generous. That would not last and it aggravated the problems but, initially, everybody was happy with Medicare. By 1978, that impression no longer applied to the government which was seeing double digit inflation everywhere, including health care.

In 1978, a new program called Professional Standards Review Organizations, or PSRO, appeared and the government was funding what were called “Peer Review Organizations” to oversee Medicare. They were everywhere advertised as concerned with quality but quality was always measured by cost so the physicians were completely cynical about their focus. We were obliged to participate and we quickly noticed that they attracted many critics of fee-for-service medicine. Some of them had failed to find success in caring for patients so they sought bureaucratic positions, some were idealists and some were political zealots.

The honeymoon was over.

More to follow.

Previous posts on this topic are under “Health Reform” in the right side column.