d 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