[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
March 1956


Author Affiliations

31 New Cavendish St. London, W.1.

AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1956;55(3):443. doi:10.1001/archopht.1956.00930030447018

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:  —I trust you will afford me space to comment on certain inaccuracies in the article by Drs. Zekman and Krimmer, published in the October, 1955, issue of the Archives.They state: "The Dallos glass lens had many disadvantages, chief of which were difficulty in manufacture, excessive weight, breakage, and poor optical qualities." I shall deal with these statements separately."Many disadvantages, chief of which...": This turn of phrase is singularly out of place in a serious scientific contribution. Can the authors enumerate the lesser disadvantages which, by inference, they have found?"Difficulty in manufacture": Of course manufacture is difficult; manufacture of any article is difficult if great accuracy is required. But there is with these lenses no manufacturing difficulty which cannot be and has not been overcome by competent craftsmen. Is it suggested that a patient should be supplied with an inferior contact lens merely because it

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview