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  • Citing articles on Web of Science (3)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

R. DOUGLAS SANDERS, M.D.; NORMAN L. CUTLER, M.D.

Arch Ophthal. 1950;43(4):653-660.

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

THIS paper constitutes a preliminary report of a new technic of administering general anesthesia for cataract extraction, with a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages.

Local anesthesia is currently used in the larger number of such operations. Although there are many instances in which general anesthesia would be preferable, the fear of unpredictable adverse results has militated against its wider acceptance.

METHODS, AGENTS AND EQUIPMENT

In 1935 Lundy¹ announced the clinical use of thiopental sodium U. S. P. (pentothal sodium®). This drug has now been used in hundreds of thousands of cases, for nearly every type of surgical procedure. Except for cataract surgery, the use of thiopental for operations on the eye has been fairly extensive. Some workers² have been enthusiastic because of the relative absence of difficulties of induction, the smooth maintenance and the low incidence of postoperative nausea. Others³ have been cautious in its use . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
WILMINGTON, DEL.

From the Departments of Anesthesiology and Ophthalmology, Delaware Hospital.

Footnotes
Read before the Section on Ophthalmology at the Ninety-Eighth Annual Session of the American Medical Association, Atlantic City, N. J., June 10, 1949.

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