The Waterbury Democrat., 1933-02-24
REFORM IN AMERICAN SURGERY
In th1s column August 3. 1a26. I said ::

In this column August 3, 1926 said: | Readers frequently inquire about "elec- | tric" treatment in lieu of surgical removal | of diseased tonsils. All can say about that | is that if my tonsls concerned there should be no "electric" treatment On May 16, 1929 said:
 Even if it (diathermy) were of no other service than the desiccation or coaguation
 treatment of diseased and enlarged tonsils, I should still classify it among the great ad- vances of modern medicine.
 Obviously my opinion six years ago was based on ignorance, No doubt the inquiries about "electric" treatment referred to diather- my, but I then knew nthing about diather- my I assumed the inquiries referred to an old discarded practice of destroying tonsil tissue with the electro-cautery, which was equivalent to burning with red hot iron.
 The modern method of extirpating tonsils with diathermy is not cauterization. The in- strument, the appIicator used by the physician never becomes hot at all. This simple fact dis tinguishes the diathermy method from the electro cautery. l mention is now because there still too many physicians who like myself four five years ago, are ignorant of the character of the diathermy method and condemn it under the misapprehension that 1t is revival of the crude electro-cautery which achieved oblivion after a brief vogue thirty or forty years ago.
 Although the instrument, applicator cleo trode used in diathermy treatment of the tonsils does not become hot it is true that heat is produced in the tissue through which the high frequency or Oudn type of current pass es. This heat, however, is due to the resistance
  The current being absolutely under the control of the operator, if the physician has the neces- sary technical knowledge and training for this work he produce precisely the degree of heat he desires and moreover he can confine it's influence precisely within the lmitations he wishes to treat. The tissue may be heated only few degrees above normal; it may be practically pasteurized; it may be desiccated; !; or finally it may be coagulated But NEVER charred burned
 The chief objection that has deterred physi- ia frpn ad Q liathormV method
 the method of choice for removal of tonsils
 has been the fear that it would leave too much
 scar tissue, which is commonly called "adhe- sions." But this fear, I have explained, was based on misapprehenson. Burning would cause considerable Diathermy causes | actually less scar than does the standard sur- | gical tonsillectomy
 The last double of the superiority of | dathermy over the standard surgical method of removing tonsils is dspelled by the universal | practice of throat surgeons today. When the | patient who has undergone the standard ton- ! sil1ectomy returns months or years later with | a complaint of continued recurrent trouble | from the odds and ends of tonsil left in the | throat after the operation, the throat surgeon | prefers diathermy to clean up what the gull | lotine or snare missed. You 1t is easier to | infopm the patient that he must have few | diathermy treatments than 1t is to explain that l he must have another operation! Well, why | shouldn't the throat surgeon tell the patient | the truth in the first place?
 | I invite any throat surgeon who has a fair | answer to occupy this space and tell our read
 CTS his side of it.