English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

A total of 120 patients who were all anaesthetized for more than 90 minutes were given eye protection with paraffin-based oculentum simplex, Ph. Nord. 63, in one eye, and water-based four per cent methylcellulose in the other. Anaesthesia was conducted with halothane, or thiopentone an meperidine, or by a neurolept technique. Peri-ocular oedema and reaction in the conjunctiva resembling conjunctivitis was less pronounced after methylcellulose. When both paraffin-based ointment and halothane anaesthesia were used, there were signs of drug interaction, as the patients' conjunctivae were now distinctly red. In all three types of anaesthesia, methylcellulose produces a firm gluing of the eyelids with the result that the eye is not dried out and the eye is protected mechanically so that foreign bodies and corneal abrasions are avoided. There were no untoward effects of methylcellulose. It is concluded that methylcellulose four per cent provides better eye protection than paraffin during general anaesthesia.

Comparison of eye protection with methylcellulose and paraffin ointments during general anaesthesia