Transactions of the eighth International Ophthalmological Congress held in Edinburgh, August 1894 / edited with the assistance of Drs. Parent, Hess, and Fergus by George A. Berry.

Date:
1894
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Transactions of the eighth International Ophthalmological Congress held in Edinburgh, August 1894 / edited with the assistance of Drs. Parent, Hess, and Fergus by George A. Berry. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh. The original may be consulted at the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh.

    328/376 (page 316)
    the treatment by galvano-cautery has not met with the attention it deserves—it is referred to in the most casual way in most of our recent text-books, although some very interesting cases have been recorded in the Transactions of the Ophthalmological Society from time to time, to which I will briefly allude before giving details of my own cases. Mr. Eichard Williams brought three cases before the notice of the British Medical Association at their 1888 meeting, in each of which good results were obtained. He advocates only one applica- tion to the apex of the cone, and speaks strongly against perfora- tion of the cornea. Mr. Higgens brought a case before the Ophthalmological Society in which, after searing the apex of the cone all over superficially, he made a small central perforation with the galvanic cautery first in the right and afterwards in the left eye with improvement from E. J. 2 at 4 1, „ L. J. 14 at i4f operation to E. I. J. at 6] L. I. J. at ^Y^^^ operation. Mr. Anderson Critchett in a case read before the same Society speaks against perforation of the cornea, and advocates the application of a large cautery at a low heat repeatedly over the apex of the cone and afterwards a smaller iron at a higher temperature and to get as deep as possible without per- foration. Mr. Tweedy in an interesting paper on The Physical Factor in Conical Cornea (Trans. Ophthalmological Society, 1892), in which he attributes the cause of this affection to imperfect erabryological development, considers perforation of the cornea an important, if not essential, part of the treatment, and he speaks with the weight of an experience of a dozen cases. And now I come to my own cases. 1. and 2.—The first I did was Mary H. of Middle Hulton, a lady aged twenty-three, who consulted me, 23d January 1888, owing to a gradual failure of vision for the past two years. She noticed that she was becoming slowly but alarmingly more and more short- sighted. Her general health was good. On examination I detected well-marked conical cornese in both eyes. Vision E. J. 8 at 4 ^1 , . . T- TO . .'/ ^glasses don t improve. L. J. 8 at 4 ° ^