Ocular war injuries

1. 14 cases of uniocular injuries due to bomb explosion are reviewed2. The majority of the lesions consisted of perforating wounds of the globe constituting a percentage of 78.57%3. In ocular war injuries one observation was the amount of damage seen or the extent of injury was much greater than was revealed by the external appearance of the wound4. Sympathetic ophthalmia was not observed in our cases due to early preventive enucleation which is the best prophylaxis against the occurence of sympathetic ophthalmia. (Summary and conclusion)

Incidence of post-cataract infection after the liberation

The 3 cases of infection reported in this paper developed post-cataract infections, in spite of sulfadiazine given before and after operation. It does not mean, however, that these findings nullify the value of sulfadiazine as a prophylaxis against post-cataract infection. The explanation of this apparently unexpected result is that the sulfadiazine blood level was not enough to combat the infection, or that the sulfadiazine was not given long enough to become absorbed into the blood. Another explanation may be that there was too much trauma of the corneal incision during the extractions. This led to iridocyclytis, which was not amenable to sulfadiazine. The end result was complete loss of visionOf the 3 cases cited; two were of the extra-capsular method, where a portion of the lens was left behind, causing a condition of a phacoanaphylactic endopthalmitis. In one case, the lens was delivered intra-capsular with slight vitreous prolapse. In the 3rd case the lens nucleus was adherent at its inferior portion to the iris, showing a previous inflammatory condition. There was also vitreous prolapse coupled with a fluidy vitreous. In all of the 3 cases the teeth were carious, and many teeth missing although the root fragments were still presentIn 1945, Dunnington and Khorazo reported an incidence of 13 infections out of 730 cases without pre-operative cultures when 25% protein silver was pre-operatively. There were eleven (11) cases of infections out of 529 operations in which pre-operative cultures revealed the presence of pathogenic staphylococcus aureus. These cases were not given penicillin or sulfadiazine pre-operativelyDr. G. Ocampo reported an incidence of 2% for a period covering 10 years before the war. This paper covering the post-liberation periods shows that the incidence of infection is much higher than that before the war. This increase may be explained in part by the hardships, the turmoils, and viccissitudes of life during the Japanese Occupation; the prevalence of under-nourishment among the people bringing with it a condition of hypo-avitaminosis and lowered body resistance; and the inadequacy of surgical facilities during the early post-liberation period. (Comments and Conclusions)

The concept of focal infections in ophthalmology

The state of controversy over the concept of focal infection is mentioned. Its role in ophthalmology in the light of local clinical materials and experience is discussed and illustrated by representative and instructive case reports. The clinical deduction from these cases as well as the objections to the concept of focal infection are summarized and a scheme of the workings of the concept is presented aided by diagram. Although the authors believe in the concept of focal infection in ophthalmology they take a balanced, cautious attitude toward it. They are against indiscriminate removal of any focus of infection. Individualization of cases is advocated and multiplicity of factors is emphasized. They hold the concept "not with the over enthusiasm of faith, but with the hope and modesty of knowledge."(Summary)