Abstract:Sir:FigureThere is nothing immutable, except the need to change. —Eraclito We read with great interest the editorial entitled “So You Want to Be a Change Artist?”1 published in the June issue of the Journal. Drs. Rohrich and Sullivan have touched on a topic of striking importance for the modern surgeon. The pursuit of stability of the human side faces with and somehow fights against the need for continuous innovation of the surgeon side. A balance of both aspects is suggested by both editors and nicely represented by the surfer metaphor: a modern and innovative surgeon needs to capitalize all knowledge and practice learned previously to face with a fearless approach new and uncertain challenges, taking lessons from his or her mistakes and adapting what he or she knows in a moment-by-moment continuum.1 Why do we have to change when we feel so familiar with a technique or with a procedure? Why do we have to spend time in changing continuously and approaching new challenges every day when we could work in our peaceable, routine way? Some lessons from history can help us in reaching the answer to both questions. Heresy, derived from the word Greek αι[Combining Diaeresis] ρεσις that should literally be translated as “choice,” has been used to define the selection of the type of life that a young person would have made among various philosophies. The Catholic Church later embraced it and exploited its meaning to indicate all beliefs and ideas that conflicted with established Catholic dogma. The accusation of heresy has been often used by the Church throughout history to preserve religious or traditional laws or codes from violations by scientific innovations. Nevertheless, by the late Middle Ages, the Church had increasingly interfered with surgical progress by forbidding members of the clergy (who were a prevalent portion of university-trained physicians) from the practice of surgery by means of a decree during the Fourth Lateran Council.2,3 The reason was that monks could not give Eucharist with their hands metaphorically “contaminated” by blood and body secretion; therefore, surgery was left largely to barber practitioners. It is within this context that the figure of Ambroise Paré emerged, a master in surgical techniques and an acclaimed anatomist and medical writer. His field of expertise was battlefield medicine—in particular, the treatment of wounds. Injured soldiers were treated with traditional boiling elderberry oil and cauterization to counteract the suspected “venomous nature” of wounds from gunshot. Paré introduced a medicament that was a mixture of egg yolk, oil of roses, and turpentine with unexpected improvement of the wounds compared with those of the soldiers treated with the boiling oil that were in agony.2,3 Although the excellent findings of Paré's new revolutionary treatment circulated widely through his writings defining the birth of modern surgery based on results and experimentation,2 inevitably he was harshly criticized for his revolutionary thinking by the physician and surgeon eminencies of university medicine of that time, who were too versed in the classics and Galen. In the same century, the Flemish physician Andries van Wesel (known as Andreas Vesalius), often referred to as the founder of modern human anatomy, published his pioneering work De Humani Corporis Fabrica (On the Fabric of the Human Body) that is arguably the best-known book produced in the history of Western medicine.3,4 He presented a careful examination and illustrations (made possible by progress in renaissance artistic paint and technique of printing) of the human body that disavowed almost all Galenic doctrine on anatomy that had been accepted and respected by the upper hierarchy of the university as a faith for over 1200 years, disclosing that all of Galen's anatomical findings were based on animal dissection rather than human dissection because of the banning of dissection in ancient Rome. The work of Vesalius was so revolutionary that he was not only ostracized and cursed by all his colleagues but also forced to burn all his unpublished works under the menace of accusation for heresy in challenging Galenism and Church doctrine.3,4 Vesalius's teachings were based on careful observation of details during dissection that were instantly reproduced by artists who were clearly present at the dissections themselves. This allowed the production of anatomically accurate textbooks, and the extent to which he let medical students participate in dissection lectures revolutionized medicine. Three centuries later, the Hungarian physician Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis discovered that hand disinfection in obstetric clinics could decrease the number of deaths related to puerperal fever. In that time, it was a habit for both doctors and medical students to pass freely from dissection theaters to examination of new mothers without first scrubbing their hands, with the consequence being infecting the patient and causing her death by puerperal fever. Through a comparative investigation supported by strong statistical analysis, Semmelweis identified the problem and compelled his colleagues to a rigorous hand-washing in the maternity ward to prevent the transmission of puerperal fever, reducing mortality dramatically. Despite the evidence reported in various publications, Semmelweis's conclusions conflicted with the established scientific and medical doctrine of the time, and his studies were overtly refused and criticized by the medical community that believed that maternal infections were caused by “poison air” in a hospital ward. Furthermore, physicians were offended by the idea that they were the vehicle of infection by means of their hands. Unfortunately, Semmelweis was committed to and died in an insane asylum. Widely accepted scientific explanations for his theories were proposed years after his death, thanks to the discoveries of Louis Pasteur on germs.[5] We reported three innovations from three great physicians that we still use in our everyday practice and that should be a lesson for modern surgeons. However, we could have reported on many other scientists who have contributed to the evolution of medicine into the modern science it is today. Medicine and surgery could not have developed without the changes made by scientists who wanted to go beyond common and stable dogmatic knowledge. Advancement and development have required revolutionary changes based on observation rather than blind adherence to dictum and more likely require, in modern times, evidence-based results to obtain acceptance over long-established doctrines. We agree with the suggestion by Rohrich and Sullivan to embrace changes for advancement of our specialty and use failures as teachable lessons.1 Niccolò Machiavelli said, “It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones.” Yi Xin Zhang, M.D. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China Davide Lazzeri, M.D. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Unit, Hospital of Pisa, Pisa, Italy DISCLOSURE The authors have no financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this communication.

Jessie Z. Yu, MD, and Jesse C. Selber, MD

Applications for Robotic Surgery within Lymphedema, Pelvic Recon, and Breast

Stephen W.P. Kemp, PhD

Esthetics of Facial Reconstruction following Mohs Surgery

Robotics in Microsurgery and Supermicrosurgery

Michigan Special Issue: 60 Years of Michigan Plastic Surgery

Embracing Robotics in Microsurgery: Robotic-Assisted Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator Flap Breast Reconstruction

The Deep Plane Face and Neck Lift

Spotlight in Plastic Surgery: April 2024

Socially Responsible Surgical Care

Promotion of Women's Surgical Training and Professional Expectations in Academic Surgery

Heresy, Criticism, and Changes in Science

International Microsurgery Club and World Society for Reconstructive Microsurgery Webinar: Career Building in Microsurgery

Optimizing Surgical Outcomes and the Role of Preventive Surgery: A Scoping Review

Both Patients and Plastic Surgeons Prefer Artificial Intelligence–Generated Microsurgical Information

Defining Plastic, Reconstructive, Aesthetic, and Cosmetic Surgeries

[Past and present of endoscopic surgery and robotic surgery in treatment of breast diseases]

The Development of Skull Base Surgery as a Discipline: Remembrances of Dr Jon H. Robertson

Gender-Affirming Surgery in Persons with Gender Dysphoria

Mastering the Art of Dermatosurgery: Aesthetic Alchemy in Medical Excellence

Facial Rejuvenation: Comprehensive 2025 Experts' Update