The laryngeal disease of the German Emperor Friedrich III: treatment failure or fateful course.

BACKGROUND: Since the death of the Emperor Friedrich III in June 1888, there are still controversial discussions whether the Crown Prince could have been healed from his laryngeal cancer by a thyrotomy planned by his German physicians for May 21, 1887.

METHODS: In order to find an answer to this historical question, the Emperor's biographies, the literature on laryngology published in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, German manuals on laryngology and ENT, the BMJ and Lancet were thoroughly studied where in particular not only Mackenzie but also Virchow had published several articles on the disease of Friedrich III.

RESULTS: Prof. Gerhardt had decided not to perform biopsies of the tumor. Furthermore, he did not perform iodine potassium treatment ex juvantibus as it was common practice at that time in order to confirm the diagnosis of carcinoma by excluding syphilitic gumma. So Mackenzie was perfectly right when insisting on performing excisional biopsy before surgery. It is tragedy that Virchow by making the diagnosis of pachydermia laryngis provided the justification for canceling the surgical intervention that had already been decided. It was also mistake that Prof. Gerhardt did not accompany the Crown Prince during his stay in England in summer 1887. The authority of the delegated medical officer Dr. Landgraf did not suffice to persuade Mackenzie to discuss again the matter of performing surgery together with Gerhardt and von Bergmann. The drawings made by Dr. Landgraf show an impressive tumor growth. The refusal of new consultations with Gerhardt and von Bergmann by Mackenzie can only be explained by the fact that Mackenzie was generally against such a surgical intervention. Regarding the question of the chances of such a surgery it can be said that thyrotomy and laryngectomy had been refused by the majority of laryngologists since the Congress of London in 1881 and the publication of P. v. Bruns in 1878. In Berlin, however, the improvement of surgical and anesthetic techniques by E. Hahn led to a positive opinion. F. Semon, who had strictly refused thyrotomy until 1886, supported the indication of thyrotomy of the Crown Prince since Hahn had successfully operated one of his patients in London. So the chance of healing a limited carcinoma of the vocal folds by thyrotomy was given. However, it may be questioned if partial resection had the desired outcome. The limited mobility of the left vocal fold that had been diagnosed already in May 1887 indicates that probably laryngectomy would have been necessary. The prognosis of this procedure, however, was extremely poor at that time. It is irony of history that T. Gluck who performed the separation of the airways from the digestive pathways in an animal model already in 1880 under von Langenbeck could not further develop his technique under von Bergmann.

CONCLUSIONS: The Crown Prince acquired his disease at a time when the acceptance of surgical treatment of laryngeal carcinomas had reached its lowest point. Ten years later, the technique of thyrotomy was successfully established by Hahn, Butlin, and Semon so that Morell Mackenzie would probably have agreed to the intervention. Ten years later, due to Gluck and Sörensen, even the technique of laryngectomy had reached the performance that is still valid today so that the Emperor could have been treated successfully even with an advanced laryngeal carcinoma.