Ophthalmic Hospital reports, and Journal of the Royal London Ophthalmic Hospital. No. 12. July, 1860 / edited by J.F. Streatfeild.

  • Moorfields Eye Hospital.
Date:
1860
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Ophthalmic Hospital reports, and Journal of the Royal London Ophthalmic Hospital. No. 12. July, 1860 / edited by J.F. Streatfeild. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    14/66 (page 10)
    two rows, the lashes are smaller and shorter, and are directed not only forwards but somewhat laterally, from the centre, either way,) the outer ones rather outwards and vice versa). In any case, so many of them as are retained in this abnor- mal position, lie between the ocular conjunctiva and that of the lower lid, they point outwards in an exaggerated way then, and perhaps so much so as to lie exactly along the margin of the upper lid and be directed to the junction of the two lids at their outer angle, towards the temple, across, if they are not the outermost, beneath the others, remaining in the little space externally where the ocular and palpebral conjunctivse are in constant apposition. Thus they are pretty much hidden, and if they are also of light colour they may not be very readily detected. Generally, I have simply with the blunt end of a small probe at the outer angle of the lids, inserted between the margin of the upper lid and the inverted lashes, pushed them out and forwards, replaced them and left them in their place with those next to them, but, in the present instance, I pulled them out altogether, not that I thought they would come upon the eye again but because it seemed to me that the patient in rubbing or wiping the tears from his inflamed eye might easily get these lashes again tucked in and the habit of misdirection these few lashes had then acquired was very evident and would be probably best lost by their growth cfde novo.” This patient, as in the other cases, came no more to the hospital, and no doubt, the conjuncti- vitis was cured. What was the probable cause of this singular inversion ? The patient’s eye had been inflamed several days and he had put on it poultices, had the weight of the poultice pressed some lashes in upon the eye and the lower lid. closed over them? It is possible, but I rather incline to think that the inflammation followed the inversion of the lashes, that therefore the poultices he had used were applied and that the lashes in this and the other cases (in which poultices had not been, that I remember, used) have been inverted by the knuckle of the person’s own hand in rubbing the eye casually. I have sometimes, in rubbing my own eye, got some of the lashes of the upper lid tucked under the margin of the lower one and then have let them replace themselves by purposely opening the eye very widely: but a patient, not considering what may occur, perhaps rubs the eye when the lids are not (juite closed, and having pressed in upon it some