Dr. Robert Henry Elliot's Paper on Trephining for Glaucoma Discussion, Frank C. Todd , M.D., Minneapolis.

It is very difficult for one of limited experience to discuss a subject presented so ably by Lieutenant Colonel Elliot to whom we are indebted for the sclero-corneal trephine operation. He has already over a period of a little over four years performed over 900 trephinings, and has made a most careful subsequent study of the results of those operations on as many cases as he had the opportunity to observe.

Anyone who has read Colonel Elliot's book on the sclera-corneal trephining operation will be struck with the fact that he has not only had a tremendous experience in ophthalmic surgery, but that he has made the best of that unusual opportunity, and that to a foundation of a careful training he has added the experience of twenty-two years of hard painstaking work.

I have recently had the privilege of entertaining Colonel Elliot in my own city, where I had the opportunity of assisting him and hence closely observing his technique in eighteen trephinings. It has since been my duty, and responsibility I may add, to care for those eighteen eyes. For two years I have been doing the Herbert tongue flap, or a similar operation. The results have been highly satisfactory thus far and similar to those following the trephining operation, which operation I have performed in a number of cases during the past ten months. My conclusions as to these two operations are favorable to the trephining operation because the Herbert tongue flap operation is much more difficult, and hence less certain than the Elliot trephining operation.

The time for discussion does not permit a detailed statement of the results nor experiences in the handling of these trephining cases. Of the entire number five totally blind eyes were trephined. Tension was reduced in all but one. In that one hemorrhage occurred at the time of the operation. One of these blind eyes had not been totally blind longer than a few weeks. Hand movement vision developed in this eye. Another eye totally blind one year has thus far developed perception of light. Of the cases with varying degrees of vision from hand movements to six-ninths all but one have either remained the same or shown some improvement. The one exception was an eye having six-ninths vision. A small button hole iridectomy was made; prolapse of the iris into the wound occurred four days later requiring incision. Upon incision of the prolapse intra-ocular hemorrhage occurred, causing nearly total blindness for two weeks. Vision is clearing fast and it remains yet to be seen what the final results may be. One buphthalmic eye trephined by myself gave good results.

I have as yet seen no cases of remote infection, but the report of Axenfeld and some others would indicate that this occurred following the Lagrange as well as the trephining operation, the then bulging conjunctiva having become eroded and infection having taken place through the eroded conjunctiva as shown when stained with flourescin.

The opinion, not yet conclusive, that I have thus far formed as a consequence of my experience and the information obtained from others of greater experience is as follows:

First: That in those cases of chronic glaucoma in which iridectomy has been of benefit in preventing or retarding the oncoming of blindness, the result has apparently been secured by reason of the fact that filtration has been produced, and not merely because a piece of iris has been removed.

Second: That in chronic glaucoma (in acute glaucoma iridectomy has proven a satisfactory operation) when the progress of the disease cannot be arrested by non-surgical treatment (an even in some of these, where, for instance the patient cannot be kept under observation or will not carry out the treatment) some form of operation intended to produce filtration should be performed.

Third: The Elliot sclero-corneal trephining operation carefully performed in accordance with the author's technique in the light of our present knowledge seems to be the best and safest operation to produce that result.

Fourth: That to glaucoma may be added buphthalmos and staphyloma, as diseases often capable of relief by trephining and indeed toward the relief of which trephining is the best form of operation yet presented.

Fifth: That the results secured when the operation is well done and the after care is properly followed out are satisfactory, in that the operation in a large proportion of cases apparently permanently lowers the tension to normal or below normal, relieves pain, prevents the oncoming blindness (otherwise inevitable) and in many cases causes an improvement in the acuity of vision, in the visual field. And in occasional cases of blindness of not too long duration, it restores some vision, occasionally to a marked degree.

Sixth: That it is not a simple nor easy operation and should, therefore, be performed only by an operator well trained in ophthalmic surgery. The careful and skillful technique of the originator of the operation perhaps accounts for his greater success in its results and those who perform the operation should follow his technique and be capable of handling complications that may later arise.

In conclusion, Mr. President, I wish to say that we ophthalmologists the world over are indebted to Lieutenant Colonel Elliot not alone for his contributions to our knowledge, but for his persistence against precedent and criticism in establishing the facts upon which rest the foundation for the success of his operation, and for so emphasizing the great importance of this epoch-making achievement.

It is because we respect his wisdom gained by incessant study and experience in a country where climatic conditions are such that a man of ordinary energy would have failed to do even average work that we so readily welcome the teaching of this enthusiastic evangelist.

His pilgrimage to our country will be the means of starting many in this new field, and we shall soon be able to draw more definite and final conclusions from our own experiences.

---