Advertisement

International Orthopaedics

, Volume 42, Issue 12, pp 2957–2960 | Cite as

Excellence in orthopaedic surgery: an overview of Nobel Prize nominees 1901–1960 with focus on Friedrich Pauwels and Gerhard Küntscher

  • Nils Hansson
Orthopaedic Heritage

Abstract

Purpose

This paper provides for the first time an overview of orthopaedic surgeons nominated for the Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine during the first six decades of the twentieth century. The study is part of the project “Enacting Excellency: Nobel Prize nominations for surgeons 1901-1960”.

Methods

The nomination letters were gathered in the archive of the Nobel Committee at the Karolinska Institute in Solna, Sweden.

Results

Among the nominees, we find renowned scholars like Pierre Delbet, Themistocles Gluck, Gerhard Küntscher, Adolf Lorenz, Friedrich Pauwels, Leslie Rush, and Marius Smith-Petersen. The focus of the paper is on nominations for Pauwels (work on biomechanics) and Küntscher (the Küntscher nail). Both were nominated by German surgeons.

Conclusions

Although no orthopaedic surgeon has yet received a Nobel Prize for an orthopaedic achievement, Nobel archive files can help reconstruct important trends in the field during the twentieth century.

Keywords

Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine Excellence in orthopaedic surgery Adolf Lorenz Themistocles Gluck Friedrich Pauwels Gerhard Küntscher 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Files on surgeons were kindly provided by the Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine, Medicinska Nobelinstitutet, Solna, Sweden. All translations from German into English were done by the author.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.

References

  1. 1.
    Hansson N (2018) Anmerkungen zur wissenschaftshistorischen Nobelpreisforschung. Ber Wiss 41(1):7–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hansson N, Schlich T (2015) “Highly qualified loser”? Harvey Cushing and the Nobel prize. J Neurosurg 122(4):976–979CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hansson N, Schlich T (2015) Why did Alfred Blalock and Helen Taussig not receive the Nobel Prize? J Card Surg 30(6):506–509CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hansson N, Halling T, Fangerau H (2016) The Nobel Prize and otolaryngology: ‘Papa Gunnar’s’ promotion of his peers Gustav Killian and Themistocles Gluck. Acta Otolaryngol 136(9):871–874CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hernigou P (2016) The Vienna and German heritage of orthopaedics from the first half of the twentieth century: Adolf Lorenz, Lorenz Böhler, Friedrich Pauwels, Gerhard Küntscher. Int Orthop 40(5):1049–1058CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hansson N, Schagen U (2014) “In Stockholm hatte man offenbar irgendwelche Gegenbewegung”– Ferdinand Sauerbruch (1875-1951) und der Nobelpreis. NTM 22(3):133–161CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hansson N, Ottosson A (2015) Nobel prize for physical therapy? Rise, fall, and revival of medico-mechanical institutes. Phys Ther 95(8):1184–1194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zichner L, Rauschmann MA, Thomann K-D (2000) Geschichte operativer Verfahren an den Bewegungsorganen. Steinkopff, DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maquet P (1980) Friedrich Pauwels (1885-1980). Int Orthop 4(3):237–238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zukschwerdt L (1965) Friedrich Pauwels zur Vollendung seines 80. Lebensjahres am 23. Mai 1965. Archiv für orthopädische und Unfall-Chirurgie 57:261–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pauwels F (1935) Der Schenkelhalsbruch - Ein mechanisches Problem. Grundlagen des Heilungsvorganges, Prognose und kausale Therapie. Enke, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pauwels F (1973) Atlas zur Biomechanik der gesunden und kranken Hüfte. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    Küntscher G (1940) Die Marknagelung von Knochenbrüchen: Tierexperimenteller Teil. Klin Wochenschr 19(1):6–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Marí R, Valverde Vilamala D, León García A, Guirro P, Marqués López F (2016) A technical note for extracting an incarcerated femoral Kuntscher nail. J Orthop Case Rep 6(3):10–12PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Küntscher G (1941) Die Technik der Marknagelung des Unterschenkels und Oberarmes. Zentralbl Chir 68:1138–1153Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hernigou P (2014) Smith–Petersen and early development of hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop 38:193–198CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ratschko K-W, Mehs S (2011) Der andere Küntscher: nicht nur Marknagelung und Anekdoten. Schleswig-Holsteinisches Ärzteblatt 5:56–63Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Merton RK (1973) Recognition and excellence: instructive ambiguities. In: Merton RK (ed) The sociology of science. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bynum W (2008) The history of medicine: a very short introduction. Oxford University Press, Hampshire, p 131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ochi M (2013) Shinya Yamanaka’s 2012 Nobel Prize and the radical change in orthopedic strategy thanks to his discovery of iPS cells. Acta Orthop 84(1):1–3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hansson N, Halling T (eds) (2017) It’s Dynamite – Der Nobelpreis im Wandel der Zeit. Cuvillier, GöttingenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SICOT aisbl 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department for the History, Philosophy, and Ethics of Medicine, Faculty of MedicineHeinrich-Heine-University DuesseldorfDuesseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations