- Email: [email protected]
FRI-05 M. L. GANNON: PIONEER IN UROLOGY
THE JOURNAL OF UROLOGYâ
e1062
FRI-05 M. L. GANNON: PIONEER IN UROLOGY Sutchin R Patel*, Sara L Best, Stephen Y Nakada, Madison, WI INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Upon reading this abstract title did you imagine Dr Gannon as a male urologist? Dr Mary Gannon was the 2nd woman, following Dr Elisabeth Pickett, to become a board certified urologist. She was the 1st female urologist elected to the AUA (1975). METHODS: We interviewed Dr Gannon and researched media, text and articles pertaining to her life and women in urology. RESULTS: Mary Louise Gannon was born in 1941 in Des Moines, Iowa. She grew up on a farm and aspired to become a veterinarian but was told she could not apply to veterinary school because of her gender. This led her to say “if you aren’t going to allow me to take care of animals then I’ll take care of humans.” She was one of 5 women admitted to her medical school class at the University of Iowa, College of Medicine (1962-1966). She became interested in urology thanks to her mentor Dr Reuben Flocks and because she enjoyed endoscopy. After completing medical school, she applied to over 30 urology residency programs as “M.L. Gannon” and was accepted to multiple programs until they learned that the “M” stood for “Mary.” Ultimately, 3 urology residency programs accepted her and she chose to train at the University of Wisconsin under Dr Weir and Dr Uehling. While in residency she stated she had great support from her attendings, was well accepted by her patients, but that the greatest resistance came from her fellow residents. After completing her residency she had difficulty finding a job and tells of one “interview” where after spending a day with a practicing urologist, she was told that they were not looking to hire her but had “wanted to see what a female urologist looked like.” The lack of equal opportunities as a urologist led her to open her own practice in Spencer, Iowa and she practiced from 1972-1984. She stopped practicing urology in 1984 because she said she was burned out. Her passion for counseling and working with patients led her to pursue training in psychotherapy and she completed a fellowship and was board certified in addiction medicine. Her mental health background gave her significant insight into her experiences. She feels that her isolation with no significant support system and a lack of lifestyle balance were what made her journey through urology so difficult and led her to eventually leave her field. CONCLUSIONS: Dr Mary Louise Gannon is a pioneer in urology. Her story illustrates many of the hurdles women have worked to overcome in urology and highlights many current issues in our field. When asked what advice she had for women in the field today, Dr Gannon replied “First find your passion, but also remember you need to find a balance in your life. Seek out good colleagues as having a strong support group is important.” Source of Funding: None
FRI-06 THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE SCOPE: THE HISTORY OF ELECTRO SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS CO AND THE MIGNON LAMP Scott Quarrier*, Ronald Rabinowitz, Rochester, NY INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Prior to the development of the mignon small light bulb, endoscopes struggled to gain traction in the medical field. The first endoscopes were expensive, cumbersome, and provided poor visualization. The mignon light bulb was a small, inexpensive interchangeable light bulb that screwed into the end of the endoscope allowing significant improvement in visualization. METHODS: A review of textbook chapters, peer-reviewed articles on pubmed, original product catalogues, surgical meeting catalogues, review of Electro Surgical Instruments Co (ESI) office records and company archives and original period instruments were performed on topics related to the development and impact of the mignon lamp. RESULTS: In 1879 when Edison introduced the light bulb, cystoscopy commonly used external light sources or open platinum
Vol. 197, No. 4S, Supplement, Monday, May 15, 2017
incandescent filaments requiring extensive cooling mechanisms. The first urologic use of a modified Edison lamp came in 1883 when David Newman attached a miniature bulb to the end of a cystoscope. Three years later, German urologist Maximillian Nitze and Austrian instrument manufacturer Josef Leiter, introduced a cystoscope incorporating the new technology. Early Edison bulbs caused thermal injuries and were cost prohibitive for all but the most prominent urologists. Dr. Henry Koch, a urologist, and Charles Preston, an electrician, from Rochester, New York, modified the Edison bulb to a smaller size and amperage suitable for medical devices and the mignon lamp was born. ESI Co., founded in 1896 by Koch, Herman Behm, William Maier and Frederick Maier, marketed the mignon bulb as a 00 cold00 lamp allowing contact with body tissue without the potential for burns and ulcerations. Patented in 1899, the Koch urethroscope was the first instrument to utilize the exchangeable lamps from ESI. The Device had no magnification, only a sheath French 20-33, an obturator and a light carrier with the ESI lamp fixture at the end. Through their collaboration with other notable urologists, including former AUA president Ferdinand C. Valentine, ESI created surgical instruments that allowed urologic diagnosis and treatment to reach new heights. CONCLUSIONS: The mignon lamp, developed by a urologist in conjunction with ESI revolutionized endoscopy not only for urology but for many surgical disciplines. For the first time, endoscopic visualization of the bladder became accessible to the average urologist. Endoscopic illumination using mignon light bulbs was not improved upon until the advent of the quartz rod lens system by Hopkins and Stortz in the second half of the twentieth century. Source of Funding: none
FRI-07 A RACE TO IMAGING REVOLUTION: PIONEERS IN FIBER OPTICS Kimberly A Maciolek*, Sara L Best, Madison, WI INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Until the 20th century, visualization beyond tortuous anatomic and mechanical contours posed a perennial hurdle for physicians and military engineers alike. The end of World War II coincided with profound discoveries in imaging through flexible glass fibers. However, discoveries in fiber optics were not widely distributed and gained little traction for practical use. Both Abraham van Heel and Harold Hopkins separately overcame this by publishing their work in Nature, enigmatically, in the same issue. We sought to discover the timeline of events preceding the publications and explain the coincidental timing. METHODS: PubMed, Google Scholar, HathiTrust and ProQuest were searched for sources describing van Heel and Hopkins0 work on fiber optic imaging devices. Also, since both men are deceased we interviewed Jeff Hecht (City of Light: History of Fiber Optics, 1999) and reviewed his research documents, including articles translated from Dutch and correspondence with Hopkins and William Brouwer, van Heel0 s assistant. RESULTS: Van Heel, professor of optics at the Technical University of Delft in the Netherlands, focused on coating individual glass fibers to maximize the light delivery and potential length of the fibers. Hopkins, a professor of optics at the Imperial College in London, used bundles of many tiny fibers to increase image resolution. Both innovations proved crucial to fiber optics0 success. When Frits Zernike, another Dutch optics expert, learned of Hopkins0 work while receiving his Nobel prize in physics, he shared this information with van Heel and sparked a race to publish. Van Heel was the first of the two to publish his findings. The article appeared in De Ingenieur in June 1953, but had geographically limited readership. To address this, van Heel also sent a letter to the editor of Nature. This was received on May 21, 1953, but delayed in publishing until January 2, 1954. 82& of letters in the 5 issues centered around January 2, 1954 were published within 2 months of receipt. Van Heel0 s letter appears above a longer letter documenting Hopkins0 own work. Although Hopkins denied prior knowledge of van Heel0 s work, Brouwer references Hopkins as the editor of van Heel0 s letter and suggests his role in the delay in publication.
e1062
FRI-05 M. L. GANNON: PIONEER IN UROLOGY Sutchin R Patel*, Sara L Best, Stephen Y Nakada, Madison, WI INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Upon reading this abstract title did you imagine Dr Gannon as a male urologist? Dr Mary Gannon was the 2nd woman, following Dr Elisabeth Pickett, to become a board certified urologist. She was the 1st female urologist elected to the AUA (1975). METHODS: We interviewed Dr Gannon and researched media, text and articles pertaining to her life and women in urology. RESULTS: Mary Louise Gannon was born in 1941 in Des Moines, Iowa. She grew up on a farm and aspired to become a veterinarian but was told she could not apply to veterinary school because of her gender. This led her to say “if you aren’t going to allow me to take care of animals then I’ll take care of humans.” She was one of 5 women admitted to her medical school class at the University of Iowa, College of Medicine (1962-1966). She became interested in urology thanks to her mentor Dr Reuben Flocks and because she enjoyed endoscopy. After completing medical school, she applied to over 30 urology residency programs as “M.L. Gannon” and was accepted to multiple programs until they learned that the “M” stood for “Mary.” Ultimately, 3 urology residency programs accepted her and she chose to train at the University of Wisconsin under Dr Weir and Dr Uehling. While in residency she stated she had great support from her attendings, was well accepted by her patients, but that the greatest resistance came from her fellow residents. After completing her residency she had difficulty finding a job and tells of one “interview” where after spending a day with a practicing urologist, she was told that they were not looking to hire her but had “wanted to see what a female urologist looked like.” The lack of equal opportunities as a urologist led her to open her own practice in Spencer, Iowa and she practiced from 1972-1984. She stopped practicing urology in 1984 because she said she was burned out. Her passion for counseling and working with patients led her to pursue training in psychotherapy and she completed a fellowship and was board certified in addiction medicine. Her mental health background gave her significant insight into her experiences. She feels that her isolation with no significant support system and a lack of lifestyle balance were what made her journey through urology so difficult and led her to eventually leave her field. CONCLUSIONS: Dr Mary Louise Gannon is a pioneer in urology. Her story illustrates many of the hurdles women have worked to overcome in urology and highlights many current issues in our field. When asked what advice she had for women in the field today, Dr Gannon replied “First find your passion, but also remember you need to find a balance in your life. Seek out good colleagues as having a strong support group is important.” Source of Funding: None
FRI-06 THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE SCOPE: THE HISTORY OF ELECTRO SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS CO AND THE MIGNON LAMP Scott Quarrier*, Ronald Rabinowitz, Rochester, NY INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Prior to the development of the mignon small light bulb, endoscopes struggled to gain traction in the medical field. The first endoscopes were expensive, cumbersome, and provided poor visualization. The mignon light bulb was a small, inexpensive interchangeable light bulb that screwed into the end of the endoscope allowing significant improvement in visualization. METHODS: A review of textbook chapters, peer-reviewed articles on pubmed, original product catalogues, surgical meeting catalogues, review of Electro Surgical Instruments Co (ESI) office records and company archives and original period instruments were performed on topics related to the development and impact of the mignon lamp. RESULTS: In 1879 when Edison introduced the light bulb, cystoscopy commonly used external light sources or open platinum
Vol. 197, No. 4S, Supplement, Monday, May 15, 2017
incandescent filaments requiring extensive cooling mechanisms. The first urologic use of a modified Edison lamp came in 1883 when David Newman attached a miniature bulb to the end of a cystoscope. Three years later, German urologist Maximillian Nitze and Austrian instrument manufacturer Josef Leiter, introduced a cystoscope incorporating the new technology. Early Edison bulbs caused thermal injuries and were cost prohibitive for all but the most prominent urologists. Dr. Henry Koch, a urologist, and Charles Preston, an electrician, from Rochester, New York, modified the Edison bulb to a smaller size and amperage suitable for medical devices and the mignon lamp was born. ESI Co., founded in 1896 by Koch, Herman Behm, William Maier and Frederick Maier, marketed the mignon bulb as a 00 cold00 lamp allowing contact with body tissue without the potential for burns and ulcerations. Patented in 1899, the Koch urethroscope was the first instrument to utilize the exchangeable lamps from ESI. The Device had no magnification, only a sheath French 20-33, an obturator and a light carrier with the ESI lamp fixture at the end. Through their collaboration with other notable urologists, including former AUA president Ferdinand C. Valentine, ESI created surgical instruments that allowed urologic diagnosis and treatment to reach new heights. CONCLUSIONS: The mignon lamp, developed by a urologist in conjunction with ESI revolutionized endoscopy not only for urology but for many surgical disciplines. For the first time, endoscopic visualization of the bladder became accessible to the average urologist. Endoscopic illumination using mignon light bulbs was not improved upon until the advent of the quartz rod lens system by Hopkins and Stortz in the second half of the twentieth century. Source of Funding: none
FRI-07 A RACE TO IMAGING REVOLUTION: PIONEERS IN FIBER OPTICS Kimberly A Maciolek*, Sara L Best, Madison, WI INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Until the 20th century, visualization beyond tortuous anatomic and mechanical contours posed a perennial hurdle for physicians and military engineers alike. The end of World War II coincided with profound discoveries in imaging through flexible glass fibers. However, discoveries in fiber optics were not widely distributed and gained little traction for practical use. Both Abraham van Heel and Harold Hopkins separately overcame this by publishing their work in Nature, enigmatically, in the same issue. We sought to discover the timeline of events preceding the publications and explain the coincidental timing. METHODS: PubMed, Google Scholar, HathiTrust and ProQuest were searched for sources describing van Heel and Hopkins0 work on fiber optic imaging devices. Also, since both men are deceased we interviewed Jeff Hecht (City of Light: History of Fiber Optics, 1999) and reviewed his research documents, including articles translated from Dutch and correspondence with Hopkins and William Brouwer, van Heel0 s assistant. RESULTS: Van Heel, professor of optics at the Technical University of Delft in the Netherlands, focused on coating individual glass fibers to maximize the light delivery and potential length of the fibers. Hopkins, a professor of optics at the Imperial College in London, used bundles of many tiny fibers to increase image resolution. Both innovations proved crucial to fiber optics0 success. When Frits Zernike, another Dutch optics expert, learned of Hopkins0 work while receiving his Nobel prize in physics, he shared this information with van Heel and sparked a race to publish. Van Heel was the first of the two to publish his findings. The article appeared in De Ingenieur in June 1953, but had geographically limited readership. To address this, van Heel also sent a letter to the editor of Nature. This was received on May 21, 1953, but delayed in publishing until January 2, 1954. 82& of letters in the 5 issues centered around January 2, 1954 were published within 2 months of receipt. Van Heel0 s letter appears above a longer letter documenting Hopkins0 own work. Although Hopkins denied prior knowledge of van Heel0 s work, Brouwer references Hopkins as the editor of van Heel0 s letter and suggests his role in the delay in publication.