Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T05:22:21.168Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

How advances in light technology have shaped ENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2015

M Mozaffari*
Affiliation:
ENT Department, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK
J M Fishman
Affiliation:
ENT Department, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK ENT Department, University College London, UK
N S Tolley
Affiliation:
ENT Department, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK
*
Address for correspondence: Miss Mona Mozaffari, ENT Department, St Mary's Hospital, London W2 1NY, UK Fax: 020 3311 7564 E-mail: monamozaffari@gmail.com

Abstract

The development of light technologies, allowing anatomical visualisation of otherwise hidden structures, led to significant advances in ENT in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Natural light from the sun, and from candles, was initially harnessed using mirrors. Later, the invention of limelight and electricity preceded the emergence of the modern-day endoscope, which, in tandem with the discovery of coherent fibre-optics in the 1950s, significantly expanded the surgical repertoire available to otolaryngologists. This study aimed to trace the rich history of ENT through the specialty's use of light.

Type
Review Articles
Copyright
Copyright © JLO (1984) Limited 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Presented at the British Society for the History of ENT meeting, 4 December 2014, London, UK.

References

1Osler, W. Aequanimitas, With Other Addresses to Medical Students, Nurses and Practitioners of Medicine. Philadelphia: HK Lewis, 1904Google Scholar
2Weir, N. Otorhinolaryngology. Postgrad Med J 2000;76:65–9CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3Mudry, A, Pirsig, W, Weir, N. History of otorhinolaryngology (ORL) in different European countries between 1880 and 1920. J Laryngol Otol 2005;119(suppl S30):12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4Yalamanchili, S. Why should disorders of the ear, nose and throat be treated by the same specialty? Can this situation persist? J Laryngol Otol 2009;123:367–71CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5National Churchill Museum. Winston Churchill and the Cold War. In: www.nationalchurchillmuseum.org/winston-churchill-and-the-cold-war.html [16 November 2015]Google Scholar
6de Chauliac, G, Rosenman, LD, Nicaise, E. The Major Surgery of Guy de Chauliac: An English Translation. Philadelphia: Xlibris, 2007Google Scholar
7Politzer A, Cassells JP. A Text-book of the Diseases of the Ear and Adjacent Organs. Philadelphia: Henry C Lea's Son and Co, 1883Google Scholar
8Wilde W. Practical Observations on Aural Surgery and the Nature and Diagnosis of Diseases of the Ear. London: Churchill, 1853Google Scholar
9Heermann, H. Johannes Kessel and the history of endaural surgery. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 1969;90:652–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10Liebig, J. On the silvering and gilding of glass [in German]. Justus Liebigs Ann Chem 1856;98:132–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11Hofmann, F. Contributions to the study of the external auditory canal [in German]. Caspers Wochenschrift für die gesamte Heilkd 1841;4:1014Google Scholar
12Mudry, A. The making of a career: Joseph Toynbee's first steps in otology. J Laryngol Otol 2012;126:27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13Mudry, A. History of the imagery of tympanic membrane pathology: from first drawings to rod lens endoscopic photography. J Laryngol Otol 2006;116:326–32Google Scholar
14Toynbee, J. A Descriptive Catalogue of Preparations Illustrative of the Diseases of the Ear: In the Museum of Joseph Toynbee. London: John Churchill, 1857Google Scholar
15Rimmer, J, Giddings, CE, Weir, N. History of myringotomy and grommets. J Laryngol Otol 2007;121:911–16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16van Helden, A. The telescope in the seventeenth century. Isis 1974;65:3858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17Köhler, A. New method of illumination for phomicrographical purposes. J R Microsc Soc 1894;14:261–2Google Scholar
18Sluder G, Wolf D. Digital Microscopy. Waltham: Academic Press, 2013Google Scholar
19Glasscock M, Gulya A. Glasscock-Shambaugh Surgery of the Ear. Shelton: PMPH-USA, 2003Google Scholar
20Rosen, S. Principles of stapes surgery. AMA Arch Otolaryngol 1960;71:182–7CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21Mackenzie M. The Use of the Laryngoscope in Diseases of the Throat. Philadelphia: Lindsay and Blakiston, 1869Google Scholar
22Thomson, S. The historical evolution of oto-laryngology. Proc R Soc Med 1931;24:1074–80Google ScholarPubMed
23Garcia, M. Observations on the human voice. Proc R Soc London 1854;7:399410Google Scholar
24Muller C. Illustrated Catalogue of Surgical Instruments. London: Royal College of Surgeons of England, 1893Google Scholar
25Prowse, S, Makura, Z. Gustav Killian: beyond his dehiscence. J Laryngol Otol 2012;126:1164–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26Wilde, O, Jackson, R, Small, I, Fong, B, Beckson, KE, Bristow, J et al. The Complete Works of Oscar Wilde. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000Google Scholar
27Guthrie D. Logan Turner's Diseases of the Nose, Throat, and Ear. Bristol: John Wright and Sons, 1952Google Scholar
28Hopkins, HH, Kapany, NS. A flexible fibrescope, using static scanning. Nature 1954;173:3941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29Natalin, R, Landman, J. Where next for the endoscope? Nat Rev Urol 2009;6:622–8CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30Fishman, JM, Ellis, SR, Hasser, CJ, Stern, JD. Effect of reduced stereoscopic camera separation on ring placement with a surgical telerobot. Surg Endosc 2008;22:2396–400CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31Tolley, N, Garas, G, Palazzo, F. Long-term prospective evaluation comparing robotic parathyroidectomy with minimally invasive open parathyroidectomy for primary hyperparathyroidism. Head Neck 2014. Epub 2014 Dec 24CrossRefGoogle Scholar