This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (9)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

RICHARD C. TROUTMAN, M.D.

AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1954;52(1):58-62.

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

FOR THE past five years, since April, 1948, I have advocated and employed a magnetic implant for improving the cosmetic appearance of enucleation patients. Preliminary reports have been given before the Section of Ophthalmology of the New York Academy of Medicine,¹ and the XVI. International Congress of Ophthalmology.² A statistical survey covering the use of 1,509 implants of this and other types has been presented before the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology.³ I feel that after five years it is time for a definitive report on the use of the magnetic implant.

This implant was devised to combine the advantages of the completely covered spherical implant and the advantages of the uncovered motility implants while eliminating, at least to some extent, the disadvantages of both the other types in use. The spherical implant, as we all know, is highly satisfactory surgically; however, postoperatively, except for the . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
NEW YORK

Footnotes
Read before the Section on Ophthalmology at the 102nd Annual Meeting of the American Medical Association, New York, June 4, 1953.

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