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

FRANK C. PARKER, M.D.

Arch Ophthal. 1932;8(5):727-732.

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

TECHNIC AS DEVELOPED AFTER TEN YEARS' EMPLOYMENT OF THE TUCKING OPERATION

Of the various operations at one's command in the practice of ophthalmic surgery, regardless of how highly developed they may be, I dare say none is associated more with an element of doubt as to the ultimate results than the operation on the muscles. As Hansell and Reber¹ have stated, "numerous operations for increasing the efficiency of any one muscle have been advocated. Their number points to the inadequacy of any single procedure."

Whenever a patient with squint consults an ophthalmic surgeon, the surgeon at once begins to conjecture as to just how much correction can be expected from an operative procedure. Shall one muscle be tenotomized? Would a better result be obtained by one of the shortening operations, or might not the ultimate effect be superior by use of a combination of these methods?

In manifest . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
NORRISTOWN, PA.

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