Szemészet, 2004 (141. évfolyam, 1-4. szám)
2004-06-01 / 2. szám
194 Szemészet years later, I encountered this attitude myself when I was at the eye-clinic of the Debrecen Medical School. We held our scientific sessions on Monday evenings. On 26 March 1954 for instance, Pál Weinstein delivered a further-training lecture on tonometry, with particular attention to the Maklakov applanation tonometer. We also discussed articles from the journal “Vestnik Oftalmolog”, for example one (translated by Andor Licskó) on treatment of glaucoma in general clinics. From articles published in 1954,1 feel I should give special mention to the work by Imre Bartók on the history of ophthalmology, titled “The Hungarian contribution to the progress of ophthalmology”. He lists 14 Hungarian ophthalmologists who became world-famous, and who enriched the field of ophthalmology with their innovations in methods, surgical techniques, and instruments. It is a fascinating article which is well worth reading. The 50th anniversary of the society’s foundation was celebrated on 26 November 1955. (This was in fact the 51st anniversary, since - as previously discussed - the foundation was in 1904, and this date is incorporated in the official seal; although it is true that 1905 was the date of the first general assembly.) On this festive occasion the general assembly was held jointly with the Hungarian Service for Health Science; the theme-topic was “prevention”. In the mid-1950s there was some opportunity to attend congresses held abroad; mainly those held in “socialist” countries. In 1955 for instance, Hungarian ophthalmologists participated in a congress held in Warsaw. Kettesy lectured on intermediary-type grafts. The report on the congress was written by Béla Boros. By that time Alberth and Bálint had constructed the first therapeuting ultrasound equipment, the so-called “ultrasonic bell” (“ultrahangcsengő”). Béla Alberth reported his first autokeratoplasty case. Imre Oláh wrote on the possibilities of ophthalmic examinations using electrophysiology, which in Hungary was something of a novelty, although from 1940 onwards several workers elsewhere were already using the technique. 1956-1960 At the 1st Department of Ophthalmology in Budapest, Radnót and her colleagues had for a long time been researching the relationships between hormones and various eye diseases, and particularly intraocular pressure in glaucoma. In one of their articles they concluded that the denervation of a rabbit’s testicle led to a reduction of IOP in the contralateral eye. In a human example, a sportsman who had suffered a testicular injury, they also found low IOR They proceeded to animal experiments including histological examinations. They found that if ducks were kept in light conditions (100 W electric lamp) for a total of 400 hours (6 h/day) then the thyroid gland became activated. At the same time however their sexorgans became atrophied. “Light entering the eye and illuminating the retina produces an effect on the neuro-endocrine system”, concludes Radnót. Today’s reader may feel that this conclusion is rather obvious; but I feel it is worth quoting, to characterize the period and the possibilities. The Sub-section, and the editorial board of “Szemészet”, devoted space to reports by foreign authors. From the eyeclinic of Marosvásárhely came a report on 970 cataract surgeries using the method of “zonule-tearing”. The opening sentence was: “According to some, cataract surgery in old age can be regarded as a problem which has been solved by the introduction of intracapsular surgery.” An article by Lugossy is also worthy of mention because this surgeon, working at the National Rheumatology and Physiotherapy Institute (ORFI), is renowned for his virtuoso performance of 50 bilateral cataract operations (on both eyes during the same session) without significant complications. Only a few members of the Sub-section were bold enough to perform such operations bilaterally. Géza Vajda for instance typically did this in only 15%-30% of his patients. On 13 April 1956 an electoral assembly was held. The results were: President, Ferenc Kukán; Secretary-General, Katalin Csépi. The Executive had 39 members, and the “Szemészet” editorial board 13 members. On the board were not only academic professors, but also chief physicians. New “political” committees were established: the Peace Committee, the Committee for Progressive Tradition, the Reform Committee, and the Committee for Renewal. The text of some of the scientific lectures from the previous year were published in the 1956 issues of “Szemészet”. We should mention the name of Andor Miklós, who reported the so-called “Hungarian technique” for closure of the cataractremoval incision. Andor Miklós was a prominent and active member. When I was a young ophthalmologist I was filled with admiration for his debating abilities, and whenever I think of him, I recall his wound-closure technique. At congresses he would even out-do Kettesy in his number of contributions during the post-lecture discussion sessions. On the occasion of the reported congress, he made 8 such interventions. I should also mention the name of Csapody, because of the unusual question which he posed to one lecturer, enquiring if it was permissible to perform a surgical intervention if the meteorological conditions were such that the weather was “about to break”. Professor Tivadar Hüttl for example habitually consulted the weather-forecast before scheduling an operation. On 8-9 June 1956 a keratoplasty symposium was held at Greifswald, in the German Democratic Republic. Kettesy and Alberth from Hungary were participants, both delivering lectures. They reported the results of 250 keratoplasties. There was a heated discussion on the merits of the “Miklós” type condom. Great interest was aroused by Kettesy’s report on the use of sinews from rat’s tails as suture material, which was introduced at the Debrecen eye clinic. The method was born of necessity, since “Western” suture materials were not available. This material, called “biosuture”, could however be used on any tissues with good results. In 1956 István Győrffy reported in “Szemészet” his new method “for the individual forming of asymmetric contactlenses”. From the experiences of his team he reported on the advantages and disadvantages of “cornea lenses”. The work Magdolna Zajácz
