- Email: [email protected]
Acute Ocular Lime Burns
CORRESPONDENCE
962
From August 15 to 20, 1951, they met for five days. On the final day of the conference, Vice Minister Chuen, of the East China Military Commission, re ported on the findings and clearly indicated the direc tion to be taken in the future by the East China Area (E. C. A.) in the promotion of tissue therapy. At this conference, the E. C. A. established a unified organization for the promotion of tissue therapy, namely the E.C.A. Tissue Therapy Promotion Com mittee. This committee is divided into the following five sections: theoretical, clinical, productional, ad ministrative and educational. From the reports made by the various representa tives at this conference regarding the results of tis sue therapy promotion in the E. C. A., tissue therapy is being practised in 31 municipalities and counties, including 84 clinical units. Over 7,000 patients have received tissue therapy; there are reports on 5,211 of these persons. The important results are as follows: These results are given in a table, which included 15 different diseases. The following six are typical: No DISEASE
CASES
1,077 Bronchial asthma Peptic ulcer 588 Corneal opacity 191 Optic atrophy 87 Retrobulbar neuritis 67 Corneal ulceration 49
o/r, SHnwiw, RESULTS
61.3 61.2 49.8 27.6 54.7 87.8
Ophthalmologists of wide clinical ex perience and with a suitable knowledge of ocular pathology will look with great, and proper, skepticism at the high percentages of favorable results of this treatment in the last four diseases mentioned, particularly in optic atrophy. The colloquial American ism, "Oh yeah?" seems to be a most suitable comment at this point. There is no room here to discuss further the subject of tissue therapy and "biogenic stimulators" in ophthalmology. There is at hand a good review by F. Deodati (L'Annee Therapeutique en Ophtalmologie, Paris, L'Expansion, 1950, v. 1, p. 105). It is perti nent, however, to cite two of this author's conclusions. He says: To judge by the Soviet literature, tissue therapy is really the "universal panacea," susceptible even of ameliorating chronic glaucoma, and even the healthy eye. (Sic) In comparing their statistics with those of the Anglosaxons, one is struck by the extreme diver gence of the results. Those (results) in the different statistics published by the French authors, who
seem to have been more numerous in utilizing tissue therapy, are equally far from being in agreement.
In other words, apparently Communism has no room for disagreement with the therapeutic fiat of the State. You either use the methods and get results dictated from above, or else Can this happen here? Derrick Vail. .
CORRESPONDENCE ACUTE OCULAR LIME BURNS
Editor, American Journal of Ophthalmology. In the February, 1954, issue of T H E AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY,
I read an interesting article (page 209), on "Management of acute ocular lime burns," by Walter Z. Rundles, Jr., and James R. Quinn. It is an excellent work and I sincerely congratulate its authors. In the same issue (page 270) is a report by Dr. Philip M. Lewis who also treated (Case 3) a moder ately severe lime burn of the cornea and conjunctiva with cortisone. I wish to point to the fact that I have treated many accidents due to lime burns, using, as first aid, irrigations with a concen trate of cane sugar syrup. It transforms the calcium hydroxide into calcium gluconate, harmless, noncaustic, soluble, and easy to remove from the eye. I consider this little addition necessary. I have been using it successfully for a very long time at the Guadalajara Civil Hospital, at the Mexican Railroad Hospital, as well as in my own private practice. (Signed) Luis Martinez, Jr., M.D., University of Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jal., Mexico.
962
From August 15 to 20, 1951, they met for five days. On the final day of the conference, Vice Minister Chuen, of the East China Military Commission, re ported on the findings and clearly indicated the direc tion to be taken in the future by the East China Area (E. C. A.) in the promotion of tissue therapy. At this conference, the E. C. A. established a unified organization for the promotion of tissue therapy, namely the E.C.A. Tissue Therapy Promotion Com mittee. This committee is divided into the following five sections: theoretical, clinical, productional, ad ministrative and educational. From the reports made by the various representa tives at this conference regarding the results of tis sue therapy promotion in the E. C. A., tissue therapy is being practised in 31 municipalities and counties, including 84 clinical units. Over 7,000 patients have received tissue therapy; there are reports on 5,211 of these persons. The important results are as follows: These results are given in a table, which included 15 different diseases. The following six are typical: No DISEASE
CASES
1,077 Bronchial asthma Peptic ulcer 588 Corneal opacity 191 Optic atrophy 87 Retrobulbar neuritis 67 Corneal ulceration 49
o/r, SHnwiw, RESULTS
61.3 61.2 49.8 27.6 54.7 87.8
Ophthalmologists of wide clinical ex perience and with a suitable knowledge of ocular pathology will look with great, and proper, skepticism at the high percentages of favorable results of this treatment in the last four diseases mentioned, particularly in optic atrophy. The colloquial American ism, "Oh yeah?" seems to be a most suitable comment at this point. There is no room here to discuss further the subject of tissue therapy and "biogenic stimulators" in ophthalmology. There is at hand a good review by F. Deodati (L'Annee Therapeutique en Ophtalmologie, Paris, L'Expansion, 1950, v. 1, p. 105). It is perti nent, however, to cite two of this author's conclusions. He says: To judge by the Soviet literature, tissue therapy is really the "universal panacea," susceptible even of ameliorating chronic glaucoma, and even the healthy eye. (Sic) In comparing their statistics with those of the Anglosaxons, one is struck by the extreme diver gence of the results. Those (results) in the different statistics published by the French authors, who
seem to have been more numerous in utilizing tissue therapy, are equally far from being in agreement.
In other words, apparently Communism has no room for disagreement with the therapeutic fiat of the State. You either use the methods and get results dictated from above, or else Can this happen here? Derrick Vail. .
CORRESPONDENCE ACUTE OCULAR LIME BURNS
Editor, American Journal of Ophthalmology. In the February, 1954, issue of T H E AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY,
I read an interesting article (page 209), on "Management of acute ocular lime burns," by Walter Z. Rundles, Jr., and James R. Quinn. It is an excellent work and I sincerely congratulate its authors. In the same issue (page 270) is a report by Dr. Philip M. Lewis who also treated (Case 3) a moder ately severe lime burn of the cornea and conjunctiva with cortisone. I wish to point to the fact that I have treated many accidents due to lime burns, using, as first aid, irrigations with a concen trate of cane sugar syrup. It transforms the calcium hydroxide into calcium gluconate, harmless, noncaustic, soluble, and easy to remove from the eye. I consider this little addition necessary. I have been using it successfully for a very long time at the Guadalajara Civil Hospital, at the Mexican Railroad Hospital, as well as in my own private practice. (Signed) Luis Martinez, Jr., M.D., University of Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jal., Mexico.