This Article  • 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 (7)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

HENRI M. DEKKING, M.D.

AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1956;55(1):114-117.

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

EVER SINCE the moment that the slit lamp with binocular microscope came into daily use, ophthalmology has suffered from a strange and troubling discrepancy. We examine the eye and make our diagnosis with a magnification of 10 to 40, and we would feel hopelessly inadequate if we had to rely upon the naked eye. As soon as we start to operate, however, we do have nothing but the naked eye to rely upon, and to guide us through movements which may mean happiness or disaster to our patient.

In this respect, our technique has not advanced one step beyond our grandfathers', and all too often we feel like the proverbial bull in the china shop. What exactly we have been doing is revealed only by our slit lamp, a week or so after the operation! It is quite obvious what the next step has to be: We shall have to . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Groningen, Netherlands

Footnotes
Submitted for publication June 14, 1955.

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