哈罗德·雷德利和人工晶状体的发明:重新评价:哈罗德·雷德利和人工晶状体的发明。

IF 2.6 3区 医学 Q2 OPHTHALMOLOGY Journal of cataract and refractive surgery Pub Date : 2024-12-10 DOI:10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001591
Robert K Maloney, Sloan Mahone
{"title":"哈罗德·雷德利和人工晶状体的发明:重新评价:哈罗德·雷德利和人工晶状体的发明。","authors":"Robert K Maloney, Sloan Mahone","doi":"10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001591","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Harold Ridley permanently implanted the first intraocular lens (IOL) in 1950. The widely accepted narrative is that Ridley and his invention received a hostile reception from Stewart Duke-Elder and other ophthalmic thought leaders. Ridley suffered greatly but was eventually vindicated as later IOL designs were widely accepted. This narrative casts Ridley as a prophetic innovator who suffered and eventually triumphed against the forces of animosity, jealousy and close-mindedness arrayed against him. We argue that this narrative is biased because it was told by Ridley himself and amplified by his biographer and close friend, David Apple. There were good reasons to be skeptical of Ridley's invention. Ridley had not done pre-clinical studies, so his first patients suffered avoidable complications. He worked in secret at a time when openness was the norm. Ridley's IOL had a high percentage of poor outcomes. The cautious approach that Duke-Elder and others had towards IOLs is understandable. The accurate history is a story of a clash of worldviews between an inventor who was focused on innovating quickly to solve a major clinical problem and established leaders who were concerned about the harm to patients from a flawed invention. The skepticism of established thought leaders remains a valuable check on aggressive innovation today.</p>","PeriodicalId":15214,"journal":{"name":"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Harold Ridley and the Invention of the Intraocular Lens: a Reappraisal: Harold Ridley and the Invention of the Intraocular Lens.\",\"authors\":\"Robert K Maloney, Sloan Mahone\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001591\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Harold Ridley permanently implanted the first intraocular lens (IOL) in 1950. The widely accepted narrative is that Ridley and his invention received a hostile reception from Stewart Duke-Elder and other ophthalmic thought leaders. Ridley suffered greatly but was eventually vindicated as later IOL designs were widely accepted. This narrative casts Ridley as a prophetic innovator who suffered and eventually triumphed against the forces of animosity, jealousy and close-mindedness arrayed against him. We argue that this narrative is biased because it was told by Ridley himself and amplified by his biographer and close friend, David Apple. There were good reasons to be skeptical of Ridley's invention. Ridley had not done pre-clinical studies, so his first patients suffered avoidable complications. He worked in secret at a time when openness was the norm. Ridley's IOL had a high percentage of poor outcomes. The cautious approach that Duke-Elder and others had towards IOLs is understandable. The accurate history is a story of a clash of worldviews between an inventor who was focused on innovating quickly to solve a major clinical problem and established leaders who were concerned about the harm to patients from a flawed invention. The skepticism of established thought leaders remains a valuable check on aggressive innovation today.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15214,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001591\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"OPHTHALMOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of cataract and refractive surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/j.jcrs.0000000000001591","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"OPHTHALMOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:哈罗德-雷德利于 1950 年永久性植入了第一枚眼内人工晶体(IOL)。人们普遍认为,Ridley 和他的发明受到了 Stewart Duke-Elder 和其他眼科思想领袖的敌视。雷德利深受其害,但最终得到了平反,因为后来的人工晶体设计被广泛接受。这种说法将雷德利塑造成了一个先知先觉的创新者,他在敌意、嫉妒和闭关自守的势力面前受尽折磨,最终取得了胜利。我们认为,这种说法有失偏颇,因为它是由雷德利本人讲述的,并由他的传记作者兼密友戴维-阿普尔(David Apple)加以扩充。我们有充分的理由对雷德利的发明持怀疑态度。雷德利没有进行临床前研究,因此他的第一批病人患上了可以避免的并发症。他的工作是秘密进行的,而在当时,公开是一种常态。雷德利的人工晶体出现不良后果的比例很高。杜克-埃尔德和其他人对人工晶体的谨慎态度是可以理解的。准确地说,这段历史是一个世界观冲突的故事:发明者致力于快速创新,以解决重大临床问题,而成熟的领导者则担心有缺陷的发明会对患者造成伤害。如今,思想领袖们的怀疑态度仍然是对积极创新的一种宝贵制约。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Harold Ridley and the Invention of the Intraocular Lens: a Reappraisal: Harold Ridley and the Invention of the Intraocular Lens.

Abstract: Harold Ridley permanently implanted the first intraocular lens (IOL) in 1950. The widely accepted narrative is that Ridley and his invention received a hostile reception from Stewart Duke-Elder and other ophthalmic thought leaders. Ridley suffered greatly but was eventually vindicated as later IOL designs were widely accepted. This narrative casts Ridley as a prophetic innovator who suffered and eventually triumphed against the forces of animosity, jealousy and close-mindedness arrayed against him. We argue that this narrative is biased because it was told by Ridley himself and amplified by his biographer and close friend, David Apple. There were good reasons to be skeptical of Ridley's invention. Ridley had not done pre-clinical studies, so his first patients suffered avoidable complications. He worked in secret at a time when openness was the norm. Ridley's IOL had a high percentage of poor outcomes. The cautious approach that Duke-Elder and others had towards IOLs is understandable. The accurate history is a story of a clash of worldviews between an inventor who was focused on innovating quickly to solve a major clinical problem and established leaders who were concerned about the harm to patients from a flawed invention. The skepticism of established thought leaders remains a valuable check on aggressive innovation today.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
14.30%
发文量
259
审稿时长
8.5 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery (JCRS), a preeminent peer-reviewed monthly ophthalmology publication, is the official journal of the American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery (ASCRS) and the European Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons (ESCRS). JCRS publishes high quality articles on all aspects of anterior segment surgery. In addition to original clinical studies, the journal features a consultation section, practical techniques, important cases, and reviews as well as basic science articles.
期刊最新文献
Comparing visual outcomes of keratorefractive lenticule extraction, PRK, and LASIK procedures in the military population. Endophthalmitis rates after secondary intraocular lens surgeries: 11-year Medicare fee-for-service analysis. Longitudinal outcomes of iStent inject with cataract surgery compared with cataract surgery alone: real-world data from the Fight Glaucoma Blindness registry. Comparison of intraocular lens power formulas for negative diopter intraocular lens implantation for high myopia. Virtual follow-up after cataract surgery: systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1