Medical epidemics : glaucoma and iridectomy : a review.

Date:
1860
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Medical epidemics : glaucoma and iridectomy : a review. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.

    16/30 page 78
    arthritic or other intevnalinflammations ofthe eye, were jumbled together in the most charming confusion by those ephemeral pathologists; every disease was called glaucoma; and we saw several cases in which iridectomy had been performed, where the amaurosis was produced by floating retina; and also where there were closed pupil and green iris bulging into the anterior cham- ber from oft-repeated and long continued choroido-iritis—which no good surgeon would have thought of meddling with. On the other hand, we have reason to know that Graefe has ope- rated for iridectomy in cases of impaired vision, when the pa- tient could absolutely see to read moderate-sized print. While all this was proceeding, was there no voice raised against it? Yes; for the honour of our school be it told, the Dublin Medical Press, edited by a venerable ophthalmic practitioner, at once, and in the terms, and with the pyrexile energy peculiar to that publication, did openly and fearlessly denounce the glaucoma dodge (see the number for February 10, 1858), and from time to time since has exposed the delu- sion. Nevertheless, it still has its votaries; and others are be- ginning to claim credit for priority in the glaucoma cure. Mr. Middleraore recoraraended the evacuation of a portion of the contents of the globe, through an opening into the sclerotic, nearly thirty years ago; and Mr. Critchett, one of the able surgeons of the Moorfields Hospital, had performed iridectomy so early as 1854 (see his lecture in the Lancet for Septem- ber 9 of that year, and his practical essay on the treatment of acute glaucoma, published in the Ophthalmic Hospital Re- ports for January, 1858). But neither of these, nor any of .the other practitioners we have mentioned, were prophets, and so failed to acquire the celebrity due to this great discovery. So convinced were the editors of some English periodicals ofthe great value of the Graefean operation, that we knew an in- stance in which a London journal absolutely refused to insert a communication criticising the so-called cures of glaucoma, even after the paper had been in type. As yet we have not had any cures recorded in this country, and therefore, when requested by the editor of this Journal to write a review of the subject, we had collected a series of cases recorded in England, for the purpose of analysis; but we are saved the trouble, for in the last number of the Ophthalmic Hospital Reports the murder is out, and Dr. Bader presents us with a resume of 55 cases, in which 84 (not 78) eyes were operated on; and in a table attached to his Report the following results are acknowledged :—19 were cases of chronic, 20 of subacute, and 16 of acute glaucoma. The statistical
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3