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

RICHARD THOMPSON, M.D.

Arch Ophthal. 1941;25(3):491-509.

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

Postoperative infections of the eye were relatively infrequent even in pre-Listerian days. The earlier bacteriologists noted the comparatively few organisms which could be cultivated from the normal conjunctivas. They found that organisms placed in the conjunctival sac rapidly disappeared therefrom (Stort;¹ Bernheim;² Bach;³ Hirota,⁴ and others). Considerable evidence was gathered in support of the view that mechanical factors, such as constant flushing by the tears and winking of the eyelids, were responsible for keeping the conjunctivas free from organisms (Leber;⁵ Stort;¹ Bernheim;² Bach;³ Römer;⁶ Hirota;⁴ Schirmer⁷). That the tears or conjunctival fluids have a bactericidal or inhibitory action was also early suggested, and many workers attempted to demonstrate such actions in vitro.

THE ANTIBACTERIAL ACTION OF TEARS

"Tears" as usually obtained from the conjunctivas are mixtures of lacrimal and conjunctival secretions containing exfoliated epithelial cells, occasional leukocytes and probably . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
NEW YORK

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