Journal of Anesthesia History最新文献

United Brethren minister Thomas S. McNeil formulated an analgesic nostrum in 1848, most likely from opium, alcohol, ether, and other proprietary ingredients. Massaged on externally as a pain liniment, his so-called pain exterminator could also be mixed in sweetened water and imbibed as an analgesic, antitussive, and antidiarrheal. A familiar antebellum remedy for both Union and Confederate forces in the Civil War, McNeil's Pain Exterminator would be manufactured by McNeil's pastor and then successors, for more than a half-century after McNeil's accidental drowning in 1874.

Famous for pioneering the oxygenation of nitrous-oxide anesthetics, Chicago surgeon Edmund Andrews trusted the Manhattan-based Colton Dental Association's claim that they had conducted 75,000 nitrous-oxide anesthetics without a single mortality. Those statistics were cited in Andrews’ 1870 journal article on anesthetic risks and then, remarkably, advertised on the business cards of dentist James M. Spencer, Jr., of Gouverneur, New York.

Joseph Burnett manufactured the diethyl ether used for William T.G. Morton's public demonstration of inhaled surgical anesthesia on October 16, 1846 (Ether Day). A later Burnett product was a hairdressing oil claimed to prevent baldness and dandruff. It contained cocoa-nut oil and was called Cocoaine. In 1902 and 1903, it was sometimes advertised as Burnett's Cocaine (rather than Cocoaine), possibly to emulate the economic success of coca-based beverages such as Vin Mariani and Coca-Cola. Coca leaves are now decocainized before use in preparation of Coca-Cola, and the recovered cocaine is used for scientific and dwindling medical purposes.

This paper is the continuation (Part 2) of an extensive, critical reappraisal of the international historiography on modern anesthesia and its technology. The first paper of this series provided general definitions, backgrounds and an update on recent research on one aspect of this topic: the history of professionalization / specialization (Part 1).¹ This paper goes on to provide a first, international comparison of entire anesthesia devices and on the history of nitrous-oxide-based anesthesia (c. 1900–1930s). Results: A comparative chronology of internationally recognized milestones of entire anesthesia machines does not suggest significant differences between the nations of continental Europe on one side, or the USA and Britain on the other. The international historiography on one of the key techniques for which these devices were designed (nitrous-oxide-based anesthesia), is likewise demonstrably biased. These findings are further evidence that a frequently held hypothesis, which suggests national dominances in these fields, is incorrect. Contributing factors and wider contexts of this phenomenon can be further confirmed: These are an under-recognition of non-Anglo-American (particularly continental-European) and of primarily surgical contributions; contemporary international conflicts and inter-professional demarcation disputes. In addition, it can be shown that these phenomena had already started around the same time (c. 1900s–1930s). There also is evidence to suggest that they were at times reciprocal and quite deliberate. The author illustrates and argues that the currently prevalent historiography on modern anesthesia requires a thorough reassessment. This should be based on a perspective of internationalism and transdisciplinary reciprocity and should recognize much broader historical contexts.

After a brief “golden age” in the late 1800s, the patriarchal establishment fought back and women faced increasing restrictions in practicing medicine. In 1900, 18.2% of all physicians in the city of Boston were women, but this number decreased to 8.7% by 1930. The relatively young field of anesthesiology was one of the more welcoming specialties for women during this time. History has been unkind to these early female trailblazers who have often been overlooked in favor of the men in their fields. Julia Gordon Arrowood (1900–1984) was a forerunner for women in medicine and a prominent anesthesiologist in Boston from the 1930s until the 1950s. Her work included not only clinical medicine, but also research and teaching. She attended Boston University School of Medicine, graduating as valedictorian in the class of 1933. She interned at Belmont Hospital in Worcester, MA where she decided on a career in anesthesiology. She was accepted as a resident at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) by chief-anesthetist Henry Beecher in 1935, thereby becoming the first woman anesthesiology resident in Massachusetts. She remained at MGH and was named Acting Chief of Anesthesia in 1943. In 1944, she became president of the New England Society of Anesthesiologists, another first for a woman. In 1946, she joined Reginald Smithwick's team as Chief of Anesthesia at Massachusetts Memorial Hospital, Boston, and concurrently held the position of Professor of Anesthesiology at Boston University School of Medicine. Arrowood led many of the earliest studies on spinal anesthesia, muscle relaxants, and spinal headaches. In 1957, she moved to Kentucky and joined the United Mine Workers hospital system where she worked until her retirement in 1970. Women such as Julia Arrowood remain underrepresented in the annals of the history of medicine. Much work is needed to recognize the many contributions made by women physicians and to provide equal opportunities, pay, and status.

After the first successful public demonstration of modern anesthesia in 1846, most female anesthetists were nurses by trade since none were yet allowed to attend medical school to become physicians. The turn of the twentieth century, however, brought about greater opportunity for female physician-anesthetists. We explore the life and career of Barbara E. Waud (1931–), a pioneering woman physician and researcher in the field of anesthesiology. Waud chose to pursue a career in medicine at a time when most women did not even attend college, and for most of her training and practice, she was the only woman in her department. Personal interviews with Waud, her daughter, and her colleagues highlight her rebellious and resilient nature that helped her overcome the obstacles put forth by male colleagues, and the judgment she received from female acquaintances for being a working mother. Waud's impressive career of dedicated clinical practice and ground-breaking research spanned four decades and inspired generations of physicians.

Background

Regional and general anesthesia were widely available in the United States in the late 1960s. The risk of permanent neurological sequelae resulting from spinal anesthesia had largely been dismissed. Although many academic departments of anesthesiology had gained independent status, a significant number operated as divisions within the department of surgery. We present a case report from Peter Bent Brigham Hospital to illustrate the state of anesthetic techniques in use during the late 1960s, and the power dynamics vis-à-vis physician anesthesiologists and surgeons.

Sources

Hospital records and interviews with individuals familiar with the case.

Findings

An otherwise healthy patient underwent inguinal hernia repair. The resident anesthesiologist conducted a preoperative assessment the evening prior to surgery with the patient consenting to the spinal anesthesia, a plan agreeable to the faculty anesthesiologist. The attending surgeon was one of the most prominent surgeons in America and the chairman of their department. He disapproved of the planned anesthetic. Subsequent modifications to the anesthetic plans are discussed, as is the fallout from those actions.

Conclusion

Spinal anesthesia remained a popular anesthetic option during the late 1960s. General anesthesia with ether, halothane, and other agents an alternative. This case highlights various aspects of perioperative management during a period when many American academic departments of anesthesiology existed as divisions within the department of surgery. It also touches upon the careers of two prominent American physicians.

Now a routine lifesaving treatment, blood transfusion between humans became a safe procedure only after many early therapeutic disasters. Performed between different species, heterologous transfusions actually succeeded homologous transfusions, those performed between members of the same species. In the early history of transfusion, both homologous and heterologous transfusions were performed in many clinical settings. Early clinicians were unable to distinguish between deaths caused by baseline illness and those resulting from transfusions. This report examines both early experiments with homologous transfusion between animals and later efforts investigating and finally abandoning heterologous transfusion. Topics explored include: 1) contributions and lessons learned from key individuals, 2) how these researchers suggested, performed, advocated, or challenged the practice of heterologous transfusion, and 3) why heterologous transfusions were even considered as a mode of therapy.

In the 1940s, Seymour S. Kety and Carl F. Schmidt measured cerebral blood flow in awake humans by means of subanesthetic doses of inhaled nitrous oxide. The inhalation route obviated the need for an arterial injection of the indicator, and nitrous oxide had virtues of metabolic inertness, rapid diffusion through the blood-brain barrier, comparable blood and brain solubility, and ease of analytical detection. The technique was also applied to the heart. Follow-up work by Kety contributed to the development of brain scanning methods.

In 1812, Frances (Fanny) Burney (born in 1752 and died in 1840) underwent a mastectomy performed by Larry without anaesthesia. In the days after surgery, Burney wrote a letter to her sister, Esther Burney, describing her experience. In total, the letter is four pages long including information on before, during and after the surgery. Although this letter has been cited in numerous texts, it has yet to be analysed from multiple perspectives, shedding new light on the history of anaesthesia.