This Article  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Joseph I. Pascal, M.D.

Arch Ophthal. 1940;24(3):553-554.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The report of a cosmetically improved myodisk lens by Dr. Andrew Hunter in the April issue of the Archives, page 839, is especially interesting because it illustrates that those supposedly best informed on the making of lenses are not necessarily always right. A little independent thinking and observation on the part of the physician who comes in actual contact with the patient may disprove some standardized notions of even the leading manufacturers. A case in point refers to bifocal lenses. At a recent ophthalmologic meeting the technical expert of a leading manufacturer of lenses said that the ideal bifocal lens is one having two optical centers, about 8 mm. apart. A bifocal lens with a single optical center, he said, in substance, causes prism effects which are confusing to the patient. The patient is apt to miss steps in going up or down because the step is not where he . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
New York

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?