High-frequency current in ophthalmic practice / by L. Webster Fox.

  • Fox, L. Webster (Lawrence Webster), 1853-1931.
Date:
[1907]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: High-frequency current in ophthalmic practice / by L. Webster Fox. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by UCL Library Services. The original may be consulted at UCL (University College London)

    6/10 (page 4)
    Amblyopia toxica—tobacco and alcohol—3 cases. The treat- ment in these cases did not consist alone in the high-frequency current, although it aided materially in rapid restoration of vision. The use of alcohol and tobacco were strictly forbidden, a Turkish bath, twice weekly, demanded, and internally, ascend- ing doses of tinct. nucis vomica, commencing with 15 drops, three times daily, ascending to 35, then falling back to 15 drops. Good nourishing diet and outdoor exercise advised. The number of applications was from ten to twenty. Amblyopia exanopsia—10 cases. It was to this series of cases that my attention was first called by Dr. Coover in a personal interview about one year ago. He has since pub- lished his observations in the New York Medical Record, October 14, 1905. I can confirm his observations in every detail. The younger the patient the more rapid the recovery. My youngest patient was six years of age. One patient, aged fifty-two years, an engineer on one of the leading railroads in Pennsylvania, had a marked squint and also amblyopia exanopsia. The Company was re-examining all the employees of the road, and among others he was re- quested to consult an ophthalmic surgeon for his physical defects. Dr. Coover was in Philadelphia at this time and he examined the patient with me. The eye was successfully straightened—defect four lines—and three days later the high- frequency current was applied to the amblyopic eye. The ap- plications were made daily until thirty had been given with the glass spiral vacuum tube; the sittings lasting from three to fifteen minutes. The result obtained with his uncorrected hyperopia was from 15-200 to 20-50 and with a correction of -j- 1.50 Sph. to 20-40. His left eye had a hyperopia of -{- 0.50 and vision equaled 20-20 without the glass. As he had been in the employ of the company for many years he was permitted to retain his position and he is now at work. From my experience with those ten cases of amblyopia exanopsia I am quite sure that we have a curative measure much more simple and radical than the fusion method with the amblyoscope. I have found it requires great patience to train small children, and even well-grown boys, to practice with and use this instrument. I predict that it (the amblyoscope) will soon be relegated to that ophthalmic graveyard where so many instruments of precision He buried.