This letter was referred to Dr. Allen Weisse, who replies in this manner:
I thank Dr. Gilmore for his interest in my paper1 and his very enlightening information about Dr. Hill, who well may have merited inclusion in this review. As pointed out by Harris B Shumacker in his excellent book, Hill's success in repairing a left ventricular wound came in 1902.2 This was predated by the successes of both Henry C. Dalton (1891) and Daniel Hale Williams (1893). Since both of these were pericardial repairs and Dr. Hill's repair was of the left ventricle, it may be argued that Dr. Gilmore's claim for Hill's priority is valid—if you are willing to exclude the pericardium from consideration in these early attempts at surgery of the heart.
I must also add that, due to the character of this publication,1 mention of a number of other worthy individuals may have been excluded. For this, I apologize to their families, their present-day acolytes, and their memories.
Allen B. Weisse, MD
Department of Medicine, UMDNJ–New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey
Footnotes
Letters to the Editor should be no longer than 2 double-spaced typewritten pages and should generally contain no more than 6 references. They should be signed, with the expectation that the letters will be published if appropriate. The right to edit all correspondence in accordance with Journal style is reserved by the editors.
References
- 1.Weisse AB. Cardiac surgery: a century of progress. Tex Heart Inst J 2011;38(5):486–90. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 2.Shumacker HB Jr. The evolution of cardiac surgery. Bloomington (IN): Indiana University Press; 1992. p. 17.