Surgical endoscopy promotes appraisal of new ideas, questions old dogmas, nurtures critical thinking, facilitates continuing medical education, and provides a vent for the creativity inherent to the art of surgery and its practitioner. Endoscopic surgery (ES) gave a new lease of life to the dying species of general surgeons. The advent of minimally invasive surgery (MIS) was not only acute but infectious for society and contagious for our fraternity. The change was not universally welcomed by all, leaving a lot of work to be done by pioneers. Communication is a facilitator of change, and surgical endoscopy became an instrument of change by communicating the academic and clinical aspects of MIS. Surgeons not enamored by MIS were left with mostly residual surgery (MRS). The evolution of endoscopic surgery has been associated with the challenge of communication from the very beginning. Whether it should be baptized as minimally invasive surgery or minimal access surgery (MAS) was not as trivial as ‘‘a rose by any other name...’’ [1]. The issue was ably elucidated by Sir A. Cuschieri, who drove home the simple surgical wisdom that it was only the invasiveness of access that was minimised and not the holistic invasion of the human body [1]. He thus settled the issue in defining MAS and emphasized that an acronym has to be not only accurate but also nonrestrictive to be acceptable [1]. Communication should be precise and concise, and brevity should be to impress a point and not to impress. An abbreviation, i.e., a shortened word or phrase, is a useful tool to ensure brevity, especially to conserve time and space in publishing. An acronym, i.e., a word formed by the initial letters of a phrase, helps further as ‘‘a concise recollection of nomenclature yielding mnemonics.’’ In light of this background on communication, abbreviation, and acronym formation in MAS, the article by Zhu [2] needs to be discussed. The search for a ‘‘better acronym’’ is premised upon the taken-for-granted stature of the acronym ‘‘NOTES,’’ which is itself a phonetic wordsmithery of well-intentioned limelight-seekers driven by innovative zeal to be seen as pioneers in this era of shrinking volumes, curtailed reimbursements, and company budget considerations [3–5]. NOTES is a popular acronym for natural orifice translumenal endoscopic surgery, but in a real sense it is only endoscopic surgery (ES) [3]. As enunciated before, ES minimizes the physiological and phenotypical invasiveness of the access for the operation, thus resulting in a minimized scar. Surgery leaves a scar on the mind in addition to the phenotype of the patient [6]. The present discourse is on acronyms for innovations in ES aiming at either hiding the scar in the umbilicus or crowding them into a single incision, camouflaged at the umbilicus, or avoiding them parietally by making a visceral entry (transvaginal access not being applicable to all of humanity). All these cannot be universally acceptable, either due to patient-related esthetic/social/cultural reservations [7] or due to scientific ethical concerns regarding visceral suture lines [3–5]. Any innovation has to be evaluated in terms of potentially beneficial patient-reported outcomes [8]. So, an acronym should be generated only for the purpose of universal communication for a universally accepted approach for a universally beneficial patient-reported procedure. Until that time, acronyms are needed only to accommodate the need B. B. Agarwal K. C. Mahajan Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi 110060, India