This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor:—The article by Dr. M. E. Smukler on simplification (?) of my cinch operation in the June issue of the Archives (page 930) is most pleasing to me because it indicates that after twenty-seven years interest in it has reached the Atlantic Coast and because in the discussion Dr. L. F. Appleman emphasized some of its advantages, especially the absence of reaction. Most eastern physicians in mentioning the operation emphasize just the opposite idea.
In devising his instrument to facilitate (?) the passing of the dermal shortener, Dr. Smukler has fallen into the common error that I always divide the tendon into four strips. In describing my operation I have shown the tendon split into four strands merely for diagrammatic purposes. I often split it into five, six or even up to ten or twelve strips, depending on the result desired. Hence a four-pronged separator really does
O'Connor R. SIMPLIFICATION OF THE O'CONNOR CINCH OPERATION. Arch Ophthalmol. 1938;20(2):315–316. doi:10.1001/archopht.1938.00850200153014