Internal Mammary Artery Ligation — the Angina Cure Fake Surgery Matched in 1959

In 1957 surgeon J. Roderick Kitchell and colleagues at Presbyterian Hospital in Philadelphia, following an Italian lead, began tying off the internal mammary arteries in the chests of angina patients and reporting that roughly two-thirds felt better — and the gap between that reported relief and the operation’s actual physiological effect is the entire case, because the operation did almost nothing the body could measure. The procedure was supposed to relieve the crushing chest pain of coronary disease by occluding the internal mammary arteries so that blood would be diverted into the heart muscle. It was simple, it was fast, it was performed under local anaesthetic, and within two or three years it had been carried out on thousands of patients across Italy and the United States on the strength of uncontrolled before-and-after testimonials.

The reported numbers looked persuasive: in the largest case series, on the order of two-thirds to three-quarters of patients said their angina improved, many dramatically, with effects holding up over months and years of follow-up. What no one had done was ask whether the cut, rather than the ligature, was doing the work. Angina is a subjective, fluctuating symptom, and the act of being operated on by a confident surgeon is among the most powerful placebos in medicine.

The reckoning was unusually clean and unusually fast. Between 1959 and 1960 two small randomized trials — Leonard A. Cobb’s group at the University of Washington and E. Grey Dimond’s at the University of Kansas — did something no surgical evaluation had done before: they randomized angina patients to either the real ligation or a sham operation, an identical skin incision in which the arteries were exposed but left intact, with neither the patient nor the assessing physician knowing which had been done. The sham patients improved exactly as much as the ligated ones. The exercise electrocardiograms were unchanged by either operation. The benefit was real to the patients and entirely placebo in origin.

The operation was abandoned almost immediately — not banned by any agency, not litigated, but disproven and quietly dropped. Its lasting legacy is the opposite of its intended one: internal mammary artery ligation is now the founding textbook example of why surgery, like a drug, must be tested against a placebo, and of how a self-limiting subjective symptom plus an enthusiastic operator can manufacture thousands of “cures” out of nothing but expectation and a scar.

Arthroscopic Débridement for Knee Arthritis — Pure Placebo, So Medicare Stopped Paying in 2002

In July 2002, orthopedic surgeon J. Bruce Moseley and a Houston Veterans Affairs team reported in the New England Journal of Medicine that 180 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, randomized double-blind to arthroscopic débridement, arthroscopic lavage, or a sham operation in which surgeons made skin incisions but inserted no instrument, had identical outcomes — and the gap between that finding and a decade of confident practice is the entire case. By 2002 the scope-and-clean operation for the arthritic knee was being performed on the order of 650,000 times a year in the United States at roughly $5,000 apiece, a multi-billion-dollar standard of care, on the mechanistic premise that flushing out debris and trimming frayed cartilage relieved pain. The trial showed it relieved nothing the placebo did not.

The harm here was not a body count of deaths but of unnecessary operations: hundreds of thousands of patients each year underwent a real surgery — anesthesia, incisions, infection risk, recovery, deductibles — to obtain a benefit indistinguishable from being wheeled into an operating room, cut, and sewn shut. At no point over two years of follow-up did either intervention group report less pain or better function than the sham group; the 95 percent confidence intervals excluded any clinically meaningful difference. The wonder of arthroscopy had been real for torn menisci and loose bodies, but for arthritis pain it was theater.

What makes the episode an exemplar of withdrawal is that it was killed by the right kind of evidence. Surgery had long been treated as exempt from the placebo-controlled standard demanded of drugs, on the assumption that an operation cannot ethically be faked. Moseley’s team did precisely that — and the result was so clean that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services moved within a year to defund the procedure for osteoarthritis. A 2008 Canadian trial led by Alexandra Kirkley confirmed that arthroscopy added nothing to optimized physical and medical therapy, and by 2017 international guideline panels were issuing strong recommendations against it. The operation was never recalled or banned. It was disconfirmed, defunded, and abandoned — a textbook demonstration that a popular surgery can be a placebo, and that without a sham control no one would have known.