ABSTRACT
The history of the first transplants is an ideal model for analyzing the different stages of disruptive innovation in surgery. Pioneers have often taken paths that were strewn with pitfalls, mistakes or failures. Sometimes victory, brilliant or more modest, lies at the end of this path. We propose to re-explore the extraordinary pathways that led to the first transplantations of the kidney, liver, lung and heart. That these first transplants should one day become possible required the concurrence of several factors: basic research, laboratory work to perfect the surgical techniques, a favorable legislative and societal context, and, above all, pioneering surgeons who would dare to apply their expertise to human subjects. Initial failures were not technical but immunological. Not everything would be perfect, especially ethical questions in some cases. Furthermore, initial results often humbled the greatest surgeons. Even though the historical and legislative contexts have evolved considerably as have science, society and the organization of the health system, this analysis of the past is rich in lessons for the modern surgeon who wishes to embark today along innovative pathways in the face of a still unresolved problem. Because nothing is ever carved in stone.
ABSTRACT
The history of the first transplants is an ideal model for analyzing the different stages of disruptive innovation in surgery. Pioneers have often taken paths that were strewn with pitfalls, mistakes or failures. Sometimes victory, brilliant or more modest, lies at the end of this path. We propose to re-explore the extraordinary pathways that led to the first transplantations of the kidney, liver, lung and heart. That these first transplants should one day become possible required the concurrence of several factors: basic research, laboratory work to perfect the surgical techniques, a favorable legislative and societal context, and, above all, pioneering surgeons who would dare to apply their expertise to human subjects. Initial failures were not technical but immunological. Not everything would be perfect, especially ethical questions in some cases. Furthermore, initial results often humbled the greatest surgeons. Even though the historical and legislative contexts have evolved considerably as have science, society and the organization of the health system, this analysis of the past is rich in lessons for the modern surgeon who wishes to embark today along innovative pathways in the face of a still unresolved problem. Because nothing is ever carved in stone.
