FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4253173887> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4253173887 endingPage "353" @default.
• W4253173887 startingPage "352" @default.
• W4253173887 abstract "HomeRadiologyVol. 5, No. 4 PreviousNext EditorialDetection of Foreign Object in the EyePublished Online:Oct 1 1925https://doi.org/10.1148/5.4.352bMoreSectionsPDF ToolsImage ViewerAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked In AbstractA case recently tried before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin presents points of peculiar interest to roentgenologists, in that the case turned upon the failure of a specialist in diseases of the eye, ear, nose, and throat to employ or cause to be employed means to determine the presence of a foreign body in the eye. The plaintiff sustained an injury in November, part of a steel spring striking across one of his eyes. Within a few hours he put himself under the care of the defendant, known as a specialist in the treatment of such cases, described the manner of the injury, and stated that he believed that a piece of the steel was embedded within the eye. The defendant, upon examining the eye by means of the ophthalmoscope, direct illumination, and oblique focal rays, stated that, while he found a scratch across the center of the cornea, in his opinion the cornea was not perforated, nor had the eye sustained any internal injury. As the pain did not cease, the plaintiff visited the defendant for further treatment on the next day, and again upon the second day following. At neither of these visits did the defendant make further examination to determine if a foreign body had penetrated the cornea, but assured the plaintiff that the pain and the sensation he described himself as experiencing in the eye was caused by the scratch. Twice in December and once in February the plaintiff presented himself for treatment, and upon the last of these occasions the defendant found an opacity in the lens. Later in February the plaintiff made frequent calls at the office of a surgeon who specialized in eye operations, and at each such visit the eye was subjected to an examination with the ophthalmoscope, much in the manner that the defendant had done in the first place. The result of these repeated examinations was the discovery of two opacities in the lens of the eye. Upon the 26th of February the eye surgeon caused roentgenograms to be made which revealed the presence of a foreign body in the eye. At operation, a piece of steel was removed by the use of a magnet. Later, a needle operation was performed, and, finally, late in June, the lens of the eye was removed.The court ruled that the defendant was negligent in failing to avail himself of the use of the roentgen ray in the case. His failure to locate the foreign body by means of the ophthalmoscopic examinations did not constitute negligence, especially as the surgeon experienced a like failure, but his negligence, the court stated, lay in his neglect of a means, known to him and to other practitioners, proven to be of value in the determination of foreign bodies in the eye.At jury trial the plaintiff was awarded two thousand dollars, but the Supreme Court affirmed judgment upon condition of his accepting the sum of five hundred dollars only, these damages being awarded for the suffering he had been caused to undergo, and not for the loss of his eye.Article HistoryPublished in print: Oct 1925 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRecommended Articles RSNA Education Exhibits RSNA Case Collection Vol. 5, No. 4 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download" @default.
• W4253173887 created "2022-05-12" @default.
• W4253173887 date "1925-10-01" @default.
• W4253173887 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W4253173887 title "Detection of Foreign Object in the Eye" @default.
• W4253173887 doi "https://doi.org/10.1148/5.4.352b" @default.
• W4253173887 hasPublicationYear "1925" @default.
• W4253173887 type Work @default.
• W4253173887 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4253173887 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W4253173887 hasConcept C118487528 @default.
• W4253173887 hasConcept C119767625 @default.
• W4253173887 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W4253173887 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W4253173887 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W4253173887 hasConcept C2776882836 @default.
• W4253173887 hasConcept C2779995113 @default.
• W4253173887 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W4253173887 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W4253173887 hasConceptScore W4253173887C118487528 @default.
• W4253173887 hasConceptScore W4253173887C119767625 @default.
• W4253173887 hasConceptScore W4253173887C141071460 @default.
• W4253173887 hasConceptScore W4253173887C17744445 @default.
• W4253173887 hasConceptScore W4253173887C199539241 @default.
• W4253173887 hasConceptScore W4253173887C2776882836 @default.
• W4253173887 hasConceptScore W4253173887C2779995113 @default.
• W4253173887 hasConceptScore W4253173887C71924100 @default.
• W4253173887 hasConceptScore W4253173887C97460637 @default.
• W4253173887 hasIssue "4" @default.
• W4253173887 hasLocation W42531738871 @default.
• W4253173887 hasOpenAccess W4253173887 @default.
• W4253173887 hasPrimaryLocation W42531738871 @default.
• W4253173887 hasRelatedWork W2362959154 @default.
• W4253173887 hasRelatedWork W2365656552 @default.
• W4253173887 hasRelatedWork W2366528608 @default.
• W4253173887 hasRelatedWork W2385797010 @default.
• W4253173887 hasRelatedWork W2519636522 @default.
• W4253173887 hasRelatedWork W3125857406 @default.
• W4253173887 hasRelatedWork W3144440816 @default.
• W4253173887 hasRelatedWork W347647073 @default.
• W4253173887 hasRelatedWork W2188773674 @default.
• W4253173887 hasRelatedWork W3032709724 @default.
• W4253173887 hasVolume "5" @default.
• W4253173887 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4253173887 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4253173887 workType "article" @default.