Parma Ã¢ââ€œ History and Critic of Arts and Spectacle

Early Theories of Vision

Visual perception is the ability to translate the information conveyed past light reaching the center. There were 2 major theories explaining visual perception in the ancient globe. One theory was the emission (or extramission) theory, championed past Euclid of Alexandria (circa 325–265 BC) and Claudius Ptolemaeus, improve known as Ptolemy (circa AD ninety–168), which claimed that vision occurs when rays radiating from the eyes are intercepted by visual objects.^21,56 This view was challenged by the intromission theory, supported past Aristotle (384–322 BC) and later past Claudius Galenus (AD 130–201), better known as Galen of Pergamum. The intromission theory held that vision occurs when rays radiating from the observed objects enter the optics.^38,57 In the 1030s, Ibn al-Haytham (aka Alhazen or Alhacen) (Ad 965–1039) refined intromission theory into the modernly accustomed vision theory, in which the middle perceives the lite that is reflected from objects and moreover, argued that visual perception occurs in the brain rather than the center.^21,38

Optics and Magnification

In 1849, the Nimrud Lens (aka Layard lens) was found past British archeologist Sir John Austen Henry Layard in Nimrud, an ancient Assyrian city (aka Nimrod). The Nimrud lens (made circa seventh century BC) is an oval stone crystal that is believed to take been used as a magnifying glass. This employ of the crystal was originally inferred from the observation that the Assyrians described Saturn as a god surrounded by serpents, which some argued was not possible without observing Saturn'due south rings. This interpretation, yet, has not received wide acceptance and information technology has likewise been argued that the Nimrud lens was likely to take been an decoration or jewelry, as it has poor magnifying properties. Thus, claims to its use as a magnifying tool remain controversial.^{iv,24,35,41,56}

Ancient scholars recognized that objects could announced larger when viewed through refractive media (for example, water) rather than through air. Lucius Annaeus Seneca (Seneca the Younger, circa 4 BC–AD 65), tutor of the Emperor Nero, wrote: "Letters, notwithstanding small and indistinct, are seen enlarged and more conspicuously through a globe of glass filled with water." Gaius Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Elder, circa Ad 23–79) wrote in his book Naturalis Historiae that the Emperor Nero watched the gladiatorial games through a magnifying emerald.^27,40,44 Ptolemy described and calculated the refraction by water in the second century AD.

Optical principles may accept even been used on the battleground in the form of lenses used to condense sunlight against opposing targets. In 212 BC, the mathematician Archimedes is said to have used a "called-for glass" confronting a raiding Roman armada commanded past Marcus Claudius Marcellus (circa 268–208 BC) which was laying siege to Syracuse (mod-solar day Sicily), although this claim is disputed.^nine,62

Later on the accounts of Seneca, Pliny the Elderberry, and Galen of Pergamum, few studies on optics are constitute in the historical record over the side by side millennium. Several notable exceptions include those of Abbas Qasim Ibn Firnas (circa AD 810–887), who made corrective lenses (reading stones), and Abu Yusuf Ya'qup Ishaq ibn al-Kindi (circa Advertisement 801–873), who wrote "that everything in the globe … emits rays in every management, which fill up the whole earth" to describe his theory of the active power of rays. Abu Sad al-Ala ibn Sahl (circa AD 940–1000), a Persian mathematician, published his understanding of how curved mirrors and lenses bend and focus light in the piece of work On Burning Mirrors and Lenses.^2,38,56,59 Alhazen, an Arabic scientist, described optical principles, intromission theory likewise every bit the anatomy and office of the eye in a modern manner in his book Kitab al-Manazir (Book of Optics) in 1027–1040.^38,49 The Western world, nevertheless, remained unaware of improvements in optics until 1267, when Roger Bacon (1214–1298) made remarkable studies on eyes, mathematics, and philosophy, in part by analyzing the work of Alhazen and Aristotle.^forty,56

Spectacles and Telescopes

There is niggling doubtfulness that the invention of spectacles led to the development of the telescope and the simple microscope.³⁴ Sophronius Eusebius Hieronymus (circa Advertisement 341–420; aka Saint Jerome) has been falsely credited with inventing spectacles because he had been depicted wearing eyeglasses by Renaissance artists eager to portray him equally beingness a homo of high pedagogy.^19,33 The evolution of reading spectacles can more accurately be attributed to Italian monks who were practiced in the art of grinding drinking glass in the late 13th century. In 1305, a Dominican monk, Giordano da Riovalto, reported that spectacles had been invented < 20 years previously and that he had met the inventor only failed to mention his name. Salvino D'Amato of Florence is frequently credited with inventing the spectacles in 1284. Some have as well credited another Dominican monk, Alessandro della Spina of Pisa, equally the inventor of spectacles. In any event, past 1352, spectacle utilize is clearly portrayed in an oil painting of Cardinal Hugh de Provence reading a volume with his eyeglasses.^22,34,56,57

Hans Lippershey and Hans Janssen and his son Zacharias Janssen of Middelburg, the Netherlands, were the virtually famous spectacle makers of the late 16th century. In 1590, Lippershey and the Janssens independently invented a telescope by placing two lenses within a sliding tube.^34,40,41 In 1610, Tuscan physicist Galileo Galilei (1564–1642), described his "tubum opticum" which was similar to Lippershey'south telescope, which used a convex objective and a concave eyepiece, only with greater optical ability.^{eighteen,28,34,57} According to Galileo, this telescope immune him to "come across flies equally large as hens" and enabled his observations supporting Copernicus' concept of a heliocentric solar system, a heretical notion at the time. (Facing trial and business firm abort in 1633, Galileo recanted his views and publicly accustomed the prevailing geocentric model of the universe only was reported to maintain, "Eppur Si Muove" ["Still it moves"].^11,17,40)

In 1611, Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), a High german astronomer and mathematician, modified Galileo's telescope design by using a convex lens in the eyepiece instead of a concave lens. Kepler'southward innovation inverted the image just allowed for a much wider field of view than that of Galileo's design.⁴⁷ The pairing of convex and concave lens elements is today referred to as a Galilean system, while placing 2 convex lenses in a telescope is known equally a Keplerian arrangement (Fig. 1).

Development of the Microscope

A compound microscope is nothing more than a reversed telescope; Hans Lippershey, Zacharias Janssen, and Hans Janssen applied this realization to create the start chemical compound microscope in 1590.⁵⁷ Cornelius Drebbel was born in Alkmaar, the Netherlands, in 1572, and died in London, England, in 1634. When he moved to London, he brought with him a microscope made past Zacharias Janssen. Drebbel started to produce like microscopes with a biconvex eye lens and a plano-convex objective in 1619 and subsequently passed them off as being of his own invention.^6,46,47

In 1624, Galileo developed a chemical compound microscope and called information technology the "Occhialino," the "Trivial Middle." He used 2 convex lenses (every bit in a Keplerian system) instead of concave and convex lenses, every bit he had used in his initial telescope blueprint.^11,58 Giovanni Faber, a colleague of Galileo and a fellow fellow member of the Academia Dei Lincei, was the commencement to coin the term "microscope" from the Greek words for "small-scale" and "to look at or see."^11,34 In 1660, Robert Hooke (1635–1703) used 3 lenses in a compound microscope to achieve higher magnification than that possible in before ii-lens designs.^26,41 In 1665, Hooke published Micrographia, in which he detailed his microscopic observations and coined the term "cell."⁴¹ The first binocular microscope and telescope were described in 1671 by Capuchin Pere Cherubin d'Orleans (1613–1697) in his volume, La Dioptrique Oculare, and afterward he described handheld binoculars in a more comprehensive second work, La Vision Parfait in 1677.^1,3,65 Joseph Giuseppe Campani (1635–1715), an Italian optician and astronomer who was an practiced on grinding and polishing lenses, was the first to apply a microscope (called novum microscopium) to observe human wounds, co-ordinate to descriptions published in 1686 in Acta Eruditorum.^13,xx,28

Although early compound microscopes had good magnifying ability (× 40–50), they had some significant disadvantages—the images were blurry and suffered from colored halos due to chromatic and spherical aberrations, and the microscopes became more cumbersome with each additional lens that was added.⁵² Anton van Leeuwenhoek (1632–1723), a Dutch tradesman, became interested in microscopes after reading Hooke'south Micrographia. Leeuwenhoek managed to brand the finest transportable simple microscopes of his time. He was making minor but powerful lenses, producing fewer aberrations and much more powerful magnification (300-fold) when compared with compound microscopes of the era. Leeuwenhoek constructed 419 lenses and 247 microscopes, of which ix withal survive.^5,31,34,47 The quality of these microscopes earned him renown in his lifetime, and Leeuwenhoek was reluctant to share his simple methods of lens manufacturing for fear of having his accomplishments exist diluted by others.^{five,31,34,47} Thus, the details of his lens crafting techniques would not exist revealed until the 1950s, when D. 50. Stong recreated Leeuwenhoek'southward methods. Stong even fabricated several improvements on Leeuwenhoek'due south procedures, replacing manual polishing of tiny lenses generated from diddled-glass bulbs with drinking glass spheres produced by the breaking of thin, heated drinking glass threads.³²

Progress in correcting the optical aberrations that plagued compound microscopes began in the 1730s when Chester More Hall, a British lawyer, managed to overcome chromatic aberrations past inventing the achromatic lens, which placed concave and convex lens elements together.¹⁴ Hall attempted to go on his design individual by employing ii dissimilar companies to construct components of his microscope. Yet, both firms made use of the same lens maker, a man named George Bass, who deduced the achromatic pattern and shared it with John Dollond (1706–1761). This enabled Dollond to produce an achromatic telescope in 1759.^fourteen,45

In 1830, Joseph Jackson Lister (1786–1869), begetter of the famous English surgeon Lord Joseph Lister, combined flint glass lenses with crown glass lenses by placing them at specific distances from 1 some other. Placing serial lenses at defined distances permits one lens to right the refractive characteristics of the other. This technique immune Lister to overcome the problem of spherical aberrations in compound microscopes. However, highly magnified images pose nonetheless another problem: vibrations, originating from handheld use. Lister addressed this problem past directing James Smith, founder of the firm Smith, Beck & Beck of London, to make a stand for his microscopes.^10,12,34

Carl Friedrich Zeiss (1816–1888) (Fig. ii left), eventually to go ane of the virtually renowned names in microscope manufacturing, opened a workshop to repair optical and scientific instruments in Jena, Germany, in 1846. In 1847, Carl Zeiss produced his outset microscope. He rapidly enlarged his small microscope workshop by hiring more apprentices throughout 1848. By 1866, he had produced > 1000 microscopes (this number would reach x,000 in 1886) and was awarded a gilt medal at the Second Thuringian Industrial Exhibition of Trade and Manufacture²⁵ (Carl Zeiss Archives, 2009).

Carl Zeiss was a prescient enough man to understand that he needed to combine manufacturing and scientific skills to improve his microscopes. To this end, he hired Ernst Carl Abbe (1840–1905) (Fig. 2 correct), Professor of Physics at Jena Academy (the same university where Zeiss was appointed to the position of Court Mechanic), to go the director of research of the Zeiss Optical Works in 1866²⁵ (Carl Zeiss Archives, 2009).

Abbe proved that the optical quality of a lens could be predicted and standardized past a formula called "Abbe'south Sine Condition," which could calculate the verbal size, shape, and position of each private lens in a specific microscope design. This formula allowed for the mass product of microscopes, and all Zeiss microscopes since 1872 have been produced on the basis of this formula. In 1877, Abbe manufactured the starting time microscope to use a homogenous (oil) immersion lens to increment the resolving power of the lens, and later in 1889, he introduced the utilise of monobromonaphtalene immersion medium to increase resolving ability even more^41,54,60 (Carl Zeiss Athenaeum, 2009). In 1881, Friedrich Otto Schott (1851–1935), a glass chemist, developed a new lithium-based drinking glass, and he shared this with Abbe. Their partnership resulted in the introduction of a microscope with apochromatic lenses, which reduced chromatic aberrations even more than had been achieved with achromatic lenses.^25,64

The evolution of loupes also showed significant progress during the 19th century. In the 1840s, Parisian optician Charles Louis Chevalier (1804–1859), who specialized in achromatic binoculars and telescopes, constructed a loupe (also chosen Bruecke loupe) with a magnification of six.^36,42 In 1876, ophthalmologist Edwin Theodore Saemisch of Bonn adult the first simple loupe for surgical use.⁸ Carl Wilhelm Von Zehender (1819–1916), an ophthalmology professor at the University of Rostock, reported a new compound binocular device in 1886 in the journal Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde, of which he was the editor. Von Zehender called this device "Binokulare Cornealupe." This was a modified version of Heinrich Westien's instrument that he had built earlier for zoologist Franz Eilhard Schulze. Westien later on mounted Von Zehender's device on a headband with a calorie-free source. It had a magnification of 5–six only was not pop considering of its heavy weight (250 g). In 1912, Moritz Von Rohr of Jena produced a much lighter loupe, which would exist manufactured past Carl Zeiss, Inc. Even though this loupe had low (2×) magnification power, it proved to be pop because of its calorie-free weight.^7,48,53 In 1923, the Leitz Company produced a prismatic loupe which enabled ii assistants, continuing on each side of the surgeon, to have the same surgical view as the surgeon.⁵²

The Microscope Enters the Operating Room

Carl Olof Nylén (1892–1978) was a immature otolaryngology surgeon at the University Clinic of Stockholm. In 1921, Maiér and Panthera leo published a paper about their observations of endolymph movements in the ear of live pigeons made past using a microscope.^41,43 Nylén was inspired by this paper and the same twelvemonth decided to utilize a monocular Brinell-Leitz microscope, instead of a loupe, during surgery in a patient with chronic otitis media with labyrinthine fistulas.^41,43

Monocular microscopes do not provide depth perception, and the absence of a light source in early designs resulted in dimness of the image with increased magnification. In 1922, Gunnar Holmgren (1875–1954), Caput of the University Dispensary of Stockholm (where Nylén practiced), used a binocular microscope to overcome the lack of depth perception and fastened a light source to the microscope to solve the latter problem.^23,41,43

In 1938, the issue of epitome vibration at high magnification was tackled in the operating room by P. Tullio and P. Calicetti, otolaryngology surgeons at the University of Parma, who constructed a heavy tripod with counterweights; this non only stabilized the image but also allow the optical unit hang freely above the surgical table. Furthermore, they mounted prisms betwixt the oculars to allow an assistant to have the aforementioned surgical view as the surgeon.⁵²

George Eastward. Shambaugh Jr., after working with Maurice Sourdille, a French otologist, returned to the US with an operating microscope and techniques the ii had developed together. In 1946, Richard A. Perritt, professor of ophthalmology at the University of Loyola, Chicago, borrowed the binocular surgical microscope from his friend Shambaugh, who by that time had become chairman of the Section of Otolaryngology at Northwestern University.^7,52,55 In 1948, Perritt started to use a modification of the Bausch & Lomb slit-lamp microscope, which had a working distance of 127 mm and variable magnifications of 3, 5, seven, or x.v (achieved by changing the eyepieces). This microscope was suspending from a weighted tabular array stand with its coaxial lighting unit and was marketed past V. Mueller & Co. in 1951.⁶³

In 1952, Hans Littmann (1907–1991) (Fig. iii left), a physicist at Zeiss in Oberkochen, started a new era by inventing a microscope capable of changing magnification without irresolute focal length. His design, the Zeiss-Opton, provided 200 mm of working distance and magnifications of 4, six, 10, 16, 25, 40, or 63 selectable through a rotary Galilean organization. This device was proposed for utilise in colposcopy, simply information technology was not widely used due to the efficacy of Papanicolaou exam in detecting cervical cancer.^{22,43,52,threescore,63}

Horst L. Wullstein (Fig. 3 right), an otolaryngology surgeon from Gottingen, Frg, was not satisfied with the mechanical flexibility of the microscopes he used. To solve this problem, he congenital a microscope mounted on a stand equipped with a rotating arm. In 1953, Littmann benefitted from Wullstein's ideas and experience and manufactured the "Zeiss OPMI 1" (Zeiss Operating Microscope 1) (Fig. 4A), which was more stable, easier to operate, and had superior coaxial lighting than other operating microscopes in the marketplace. The OPMI one had x to 40.5 cm of working distance and magnifications of 2.5 and 50^vii (Carl Zeiss Archives, 2009). Also during the same year, Heinrich Harms and Günter Mackensen in Tubingen adapted this microscope to ophthalmological surgery and during an Ophthalmological Congress in Buenos Aires, Jose Ignacio Barraquer used this microscope for ophthalmological surgery^seven (Carl Zeiss Archives, 2009).

In 1956, Henry M. Dekking of Groningen added 3 innovations to the operating microscope: an centric illumination, a focusing lever that could be operated with the knee, and an x-y coordinate organization with foot controls. These latter ii developments emancipated the surgeons' hands from the slavery of the microscope's controls. As well that year, Jose Barraquer adjusted a foot-operated focusing device and a slit lamp to a Zeiss microscope, assuasive better visualization via side illumination, while his brother, Joaquin Barraquer, designed a ceiling-mounted microscope suspension organization (attached to a special column adult by Ignacio Barraquer y Barraquer, father of Joaquin and Jose, which could besides support other instruments and has found apply in surgical cinematography).⁷

Neurosurgery Adopts the Operating Microscope

The surgical microscope entered the neurosurgical operating room in 1957 at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, when Theodor Kurze removed a neurilemoma in cranial nervus VII from a 5-year-old patient. Kurze had been inspired past a film depicting the surgical use of a microscope by the otolaryngology surgeon William House. Even though Kurze was pleased with the outcomes of the surgeries he performed nether the microscope, he establish it difficult to sterilize the surgical drapes for his microscope. He later managed to solve this trouble by using ethylene oxide gas (generally used for sterilizing spacecraft).³⁷

In 1958, upon a request by Pitts Crick, the Keeler Instrument Co. manufactured a customized correspond Zeiss microscopes; this stand up was quickly followed past a motorized version. By 1959, Richard C. Troutman mounted an electric hydraulic chair to a Zeiss microscope and 1 year later, installed a motorized zoom objective to his Bausch & Lomb microscope. This aforementioned yr, Dermot Pierse requested that Keeler instruments produce accessories to attach to the microscope to serve every bit an armrest for the surgeon and a headrest for the patient.^7,63 In 1964, Jose Barraquer added short ocular tubes and a slit lamp, which could be rotated on both its centrality and the microscope'southward axis, to the OPMI one.

Julius H. Jacobson wanted to allow a second surgeon to assist him while using magnification aids during the surgery. Jacobson and Ernesto L. Suarez had used loupes in surgeries but were not satisfied with the levels of magnification that they achieved. Therefore, Jacobson contacted Carl Zeiss, Inc., and in 1964, Dr. Littman designed a microscope for Jacobson past adapting beam-splitter technology. This microscope was named the "Diploscope" (Fig. 4B).^16,60,61

In 1965, on the advice of Jose Barraquer, Sais from Buenos Aires manufactured a prototype, in which the slit lamp, pic, TV camera, and other sources of illumination rotated effectually the microscope.⁷ The same year, Zeiss manufactured the OPMI ii (Fig. 4C), which featured motorized zoom and focus (Carl Zeiss Archives, 2009). In 1966, Jose and Joaquin Barraquer helped Hans Littman produce the OPMI three. Later on, Jose Barraquer attached several accessories to the OPMI 3; these included a rotating prism, suturing reticules in the eyepieces, a measurement scale in the slit, the rotary Galilean device of the OPMI 1 to allow changes in magnification, and a device to sterilize the microscope.^7,8

Heinrich Harms was dissatisfied with the large size of the Zeiss Diploscope, which resulted in the production of the smaller OPMI 5 in 1966.⁷ In 1968, Joaquin and Littman reported a microscope (OPMI four) which allowed them deeper field focusing and sixteen-mm move picturing through a special telelens⁷ (Carl Zeiss Athenaeum, 2009).

In 1970, Roberto Sampaolesi reported that he used manual tilting to avoid a solely perpendicular view with the microscope, and later this was accomplished by using a modest backup motor manufactured past Carl Zeiss, Inc. During the 1970s, Zeiss manufactured a stereoscopic coobserver accessory for the OPMI 7P/H, which allowed 3 surgeons to piece of work simultaneously. This system also featured a high intensity calorie-free source to counteract the dimness of the prototype that results from the additional viewing stations^vii,23,30,50 (Carl Zeiss Athenaeum, 2009).

In 1972, Yaşargil managed to overcome the unwieldiness of the operating microscope past amalgam a system of adjustable multiaxis counterweights to counterbalance the microscope, a concept that had been originally suggested by Leonard I. Malis, the inventor of 2-point (bipolar) coagulation. Yaşargil attached electromagnetic brakes to each joint of the microscope to provide stability without preventing mobility. A mouth switch released the brakes, allowing the surgeon to motion the microscope in both 10 and y axes and besides controlled the focus. In 1976, Carl Zeiss, Inc., and the Contraves Visitor codeveloped a commercial suspension system based on Yaşargil's ideas. Diane Yaşargil later suggested a heating arrangement for the eyepieces of the microscope to avoid fogging^23,39,66 (Carl Zeiss Archives, 2009).

Zeiss introduced the OPMI CS in 1991 and the OPMI ES in 1994, specifically designed for neurosurgery. In 1992, Zeiss manufactured a frameless navigation device, the Multicoordinate Manipulator, as an accessory for the OPMI ES. In 1997, Zeiss introduced the OPMI Neuro and equipped this microscope with Multivision in 2000. This system projects advanced imaging techniques (for case, MR imaging, CT, and and then on) straight into the eyepieces (Carl Zeiss Athenaeum, 2009).

Contemporary Operating Microscopes

Operating microscopes have improved tremendously since they first entered the operating room. Today they offer good magnification without significant aberrations, sufficient illumination without excessive heat, and satisfying stability without sacrificing operational flexibility. The cameras attached to modernistic microscopes permit surgical procedures to be recorded in loftier-definition quality. With the appropriate attachments, it is possible for 2 assistants to visualize the same surgical field as the primary surgeon. Controls for releasing the magnetic brakes and adjusting magnification tin can either be placed on handles or on a pedal. Some microscopes even have an autofocus characteristic. Still, despite these impressive technology achievements, there is undoubtedly opportunity for connected innovation.

Sophisticated imaging capabilities are beingness developed for today's operating microscopes. The Leica Visitor articles 2 modules, FL-400 and FL-800, which can be integrated into the Leica M525 OH4 (Fig. 5 left) or Leica M520 OH3 operating microscopes. The FL-400 module provides blueish light illumination, which allows the surgeon to visualize malignant gliomas in patients who have been given 5-aminolevulinic acid orally (Fig. 6). The FL-800 module offers intraoperative angiography by detecting intravenously injected ICG (Indocyanine Green) and projects the images to a monitor (Fig. 7) (Leica Microsystems, Inc. archives, 2009). Similar engineering is offered by Carl Zeiss, Inc., whose neurosurgical microscopes include the OPMI Pentero (Fig. 5 correct) and a ceiling-mounted version, the OPMI Pentero C. Infrared 800 technology in these models makes intraoperative angiography possible, while Blue 400 engineering science facilitates the detection of malignant gliomas. Both technologies are available for the OPMI Pentero series (Carl Zeiss Archives, 2009).

As can be seen from the higher up discussion, modern microscopes have already started to combine multiple visualization techniques. In the near future, this trend will accelerate. We are not and then far from microscopes that can display MR images, angiograms, and CT scans simultaneously and combine the data intraoperatively. Such real-time access to multiple types of imaging data will potentially aid in the spontaneous decision making of the surgeon in the operating room.

The Next Step for the Operating Microscope

In 47 BC, Julius Caesar is said to have used these words to draw his victory over Pharneces II of Pontus in the Boxing of Zela, Turkey: "Veni, vidi, vici" ("I came, I saw, I conquered").^15,51 This aforementioned motto may be loosely applied to modern neurosurgery in its battle against disease. "Veni" could be interpreted as the neurosurgical arroyo to proceeds access to the lesion. "Vidi" could exist interpreted as visualization modalities (such as radiography, MR imaging, CT, or microscopy). Finally, "vici" could correspond to a successful surgical outcome.

From the day that the microscope entered the operating room, the size, focusing, and flexibility of the microscope have continually presented operational challenges, and solutions to these have often caused new problems. For instance, loupes can overcome the bulk of a microscope, but they are express by their nonadjustable focus and depression magnification. Loupes with increased magnification introduce the problem of stability, considering fifty-fifty slight movements of the surgeon's head will cause the surgical field to be out of focus. Autofocus loupes could be used to overcome this problem. Because the depth of field at high magnifications is very small, yet, an autofocus system faces the challenge of determining which focal plane is of interest to the surgeon at any given moment.

One method for addressing this trouble would be to use a camera or a miniradar specifically targeted to follow the tip of a surgeon'southward microinstruments. Such a system could automatically adapt the focus of the loupe or microscope by continuously measuring the distance between an objective and the instrument's tip. In this way, a surgeon could maintain focus at the desired site while being free from manipulating traditional focus controls. Combining this blazon of autofocus with the use of a loupe would additionally permit the surgeon's hands to also exist costless from microscope movement controls.

It has been estimated that surgeons may spend up to 40% of their total time in surgery making adjustments to the microscope.⁶⁶ The future evolution of technologies such as surgical instrument tracking autofocus will thus have the potential to significantly decrease surgical duration and as well increase the performance of the surgeon.

Disclaimer

The authors report no disharmonize of interest concerning the materials or methods used in this written report or the findings specified in this paper.

References

1↑

Abrahams P : The kickoff 300 years of binocular telescopes .
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Commendation
2↑

Agutter PS , & Wheatly DN : Thinking About Life: The History and Philosophy of Biological science and Other Sciences New York , Springer , 2008 . 17
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
3↑

Aikin J , , Enfield W , , Nicholson , Johnston Westward , & Morgan T : General Biography; or, Lives, Critical and Historical, of the Most Eminent Persons of All Ages, Countries, Conditions, and Professions, Arranged Co-ordinate to Alphabetical Gild, Vol ii London , Thousand. M. and J. Robinson , 1801 . 655
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
6↑

Bancroft E : Experimental Researches Concerning the Philosophy of Permanent Colours Philadelphia , T Dobson , 1814 . 332
- Search Google Scholar
- Consign Commendation
7↑

Barraquer JI : The history of the microscope in ocular surgery . J Microsurg 1 : 288 – 299 , 1980
- Search Google Scholar
- Consign Citation
8↑

Barraquer JI , , Barraquer J , & Littman H : A new operating microscope for ocular surgery . Am J Ophthalmol 63 : xc – 97 , 1967
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
nine↑

Behrman D : Solar Energy: The Awakening Science Great United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland , Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd , 1979 . 33 – 34
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
ten↑

Brewster D : The Edinburgh Journal of Science Edinburgh , Thomas Clark , 1831 . 169 – 179
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
11↑

Carpenter WB , & Dallinger WH : The Microscope and Its Revelations Philadelphia , P. Blackiston's Sons and Co , 1901 . 122 – 125
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
12↑

Clarke AR , & Eberhardt CN : Microscopy Techniques for Materials Science Cambridge , Woodhead Publishing Ltd , 2002 . 58 – 60
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
13↑

Crisp F , , Bennett AW , , Bell FJ , , Mayall J , , Hebb RG , & Thomson JA : Periodical of the Imperial Microscopical Society London & Edinburgh , Williams & Norgate , 1888 . 109
- Search Google Scholar
- Consign Commendation
14↑

Croft WJ : Under the Microscope Singapore , World Scientific , 2006 . 7 – 8
- Search Google Scholar
- Consign Citation
16↑

Doft MA , , Widmann WD , & Hardy MA : Nether a microscope: Julius H. Jacobson, MD (1927–) . J Surg Educ 65 : 316 – 319 , 2008
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
17↑

Drake S : Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography New York , Courier Dover Publications , 2003 . 356 – 357
- Search Google Scholar
- Consign Commendation
18↑

Drake S : Galileo's first scope observations . Periodical for the History of Astronomy vii : 153 – 168 , 1976
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
19↑

Ewert D : A Full general Introduction to the Bible: From Aboriginal Tablets to Modern Translations Yard Rapids, MI , Zondervan , 1990 . 176
- Search Google Scholar
- Consign Citation
20↑

Field JV , & James FAJL : Renaissance and Revolution: Humanists, Scholars, Craftsmen and Natural Philosophers in Early Modern Europe London , Cambridge University Press , 1997 . 232
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
21↑

Freedheim DK : Handbook of Psychology Vol one : Hoboken, NJ , John Wiley and Sons , 2003 . 91 – 92
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
22↑

Garrison FH : An Introduction to the History of Medicine Philadelphia , WB Saunders Company , 1913 . 170
- Search Google Scholar
- Consign Citation
23↑

Gelberman RH : Microsurgery and the development of the operating microscope . Contemp Surg 13 : 43 – 46 , 1978
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
24↑

Guenther AH : International Trends in Applied Eyes Bellingham, WA , SPIE Press , 2002 . 645
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
25↑

Hannavy J : Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography Boca Raton, FL , CRC Printing , 2008 . 1 – 1521 – 1522
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
26↑

Harris CA , , Blandy AA , & Piggot Every bit : American Journal of Dental Science Vol 5 : Philadelphia , Lindsay & Blackiston , 1855 . 131
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
27↑

Healy JF : Pliny the Elder on Science and Engineering New York , Oxford University Printing , 1999 . 1 – 3 , 44 , 147
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
28↑

Helden AV : Measuring the Universe Chicago , Academy of Chicago Press , 2005 . 118
- Search Google Scholar
- Consign Citation
29

Herbermann CG , , Footstep EA , , Shahan TJ , , Pallen CB , & Wynne JJ : The Catholic Encyclopedia: An International Work of Reference on the Constitution, Doctrine, Discipline, and History of the Catholic Church building, Supp. 1, Vol 17 New York , Encyclopedia Press , 1913 . 222
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
30↑

Hoerenz P : Magnification: loupes and the operating microscope . Clin Obstet Gynecol 23 : 1151 – 1162 , 1980
- Search Google Scholar
- Consign Citation
31↑

Huerta RD : Giants of Delft Lewisburg, PA , Bucknell University Press , 2003 . 30 – 32
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
32↑

Carboni G : A glass-sphere microscope .
- Search Google Scholar
- Consign Commendation
33↑

Ilardi V : Renaissance Vision from Spectacles to Telescopes Philadelphia , American Philosophical Club , 2007 . 276 – 277
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
34↑

Kalderon AE : The evolution of microscope design from its invention to the present days . Am J Surg Pathol 7 : 95 – 102 , 1983
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
35↑

King HC , & Jones HS : The History of the Telescope New York , Courier Dover Publications , 2003 . 25
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
36↑

Kingslake R : A History of the Photographic Lens London , Academic Press , 1989
- Search Google Scholar
- Consign Commendation
37↑

Kriss TC , & Kriss VM : History of the operating microscope: from magnifying glass to microneurosurgery . Neurosurgery 42 : 899 – 907 , 1998
- Search Google Scholar
- Consign Citation
38↑

Lindberg DC : Theories of Vision from al-Kindi to Kepler Chicago , University of Chicago Printing , 1981 . eighteen – 22 – 58 – 68
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
39↑

Louw DF , , Sutherland GR , & Schulder M : From microscopic to astronomic, the legacy of Carl Zeiss . Neurosurgery 52 : 668 – 674 , 2003
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
40↑

Lulek T , , Lulek B , & Wal A : Symmetry and Structural Properties of Condensed Matter Poland , World Scientific , 2003 . 3 – four
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
42↑

Norris WF , & Oliver CA : System of Diseases of the Middle, Vol 2 Philadelphia , JB Lippincott , 1897 – 57 – 58
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
43↑

Nylén CO : The microscope in aural surgery, its offset use and later development . Acta Otolaryngol Suppl 116 : 226 – 240 , 1954
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Commendation
44↑

Pliny the Elder , Natural History: A Selection Healy JF : London , Penguin Classics , 1991
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Commendation
45↑

Porter R , , Linberg DC , , Numbers RL , , Nye MJ , & Ross D : The Cambridge History of Science: Eighteenth-Century Science New York , Cambridge Academy Press , 2003 . 522 – 523
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
46↑

Quekett JT , & Quekett J : A Practical Treatise on the Use of the Microscope: Including the Different Methods of Preparing and Examining Animal, Vegetable, and Mineral Structures London , Bailliere , 1855 . ii – 3
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
47↑

Rochow TG , & Tucker PA : Introduction to Microscopy by Means of Low-cal, Electrons, X Rays, or Acoustics New York , Springer , 1994 . i – 4
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
48↑

Rohr M : Dice binokularen Instrumente: nach Quellen Berlin , J Springer , 1907
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
49↑

Roxburgh DJ : Prefacing the Prototype: The Writing of Art History in Sixteenth-Century Iran The Netherlands , Brill Academic Publishers , 2001
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Commendation
50↑

Sampaolesi R , & Zarate J : The Glaucomas: Pediatric Glaucomas New York , Springer , 2009 . 128 – 129
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Commendation
51↑

Schmitt CB , , Skinner Q , , Kessler Eastward , & Kraye J : The Cambridge History of Renaissance Philosophy Cambridge , Cambridge Academy Printing , 1990 . 271 – 272
- Search Google Scholar
- Consign Citation
52↑

Schultheiss D , & Denil J : History of the microscope and development of microsurgery: a revolution for reproductive tract surgery . Andrologia 34 : 234 – 241 , 2002
- Search Google Scholar
- Consign Citation
53↑

Schulze F : [Carl Wilhelm von Zehender (1819–1916)—accurate data from his life.] . Gesnerus 47 : 59 – 66 , 1990 .
- Search Google Scholar
- Consign Citation
54↑

Serdyuk IN , , Zaccai NR , & Zaccai J : Methods in Molecular Biophysics Cambridge , Cambridge Academy Press , 2007 . 627 – 628 , 885
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
55↑

Shambaugh GE Jr : Fenestration; past, present and futurity . Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol 64 : 149 – 160 , 1955
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
56↑

Singh S : Fundamentals of Optical Engineering New Delhi , Discovery Publishing Business firm , 2009 . 4 – eight , 17 , 25
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Commendation
57↑

Splinter R , & Hooper BA : An Introduction to Biomedical Optics London , Taylor & Francis Group , 2007
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
58↑

Steadman P : Vermeer'south Camera New York , Oxford Academy Press , 2002 . 53
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
59↑

Suleri ZA , & Ahmad Z : Influence of Islam on World Civilization Karachi , Royal Book Co , 1994 . 222
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
60↑

Tamai S : History of microsurgery—from the showtime until the cease of the 1970s . Microsurgery 14 : 6 – xiii , 1993
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
61↑

Tamai S , , Usui Thou , & Yoshizu T : Experimental and Clinical Reconstructive Microsurgery New York , Springer , 2003 . four – 6
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
62↑

Tokaty GA : A History and Philosophy of Fluid Mechanics New York , Courier Dover Publications , 1994 . 21 – 22
- Search Google Scholar
- Consign Citation
63↑

Troutman RC : The operating microscope: past, present and hereafter . Trans Ophthalmol Soc U Thousand 87 : 205 – 218 , 1967
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
65↑

Wade NJ : A note on the history of binocular microscopes . Perception 10 : 591 – 592 , 1981
- Search Google Scholar
- Export Citation
66↑

Yaşargil MG : Microneurosurgery Vol 1 : Stuttgart , Georg Thieme Verlag , 1984 . 208 – 211
- Search Google Scholar
- Consign Citation

paynehicest.blogspot.com

Source: https://thejns.org/focus/view/journals/neurosurg-focus/27/3/article-pE4.xml

Parma Ã¢ââ€œ History and Critic of Arts and Spectacle

Early Theories of Vision

Optics and Magnification

Spectacles and Telescopes

Development of the Microscope

The Microscope Enters the Operating Room

Neurosurgery Adopts the Operating Microscope

Contemporary Operating Microscopes

The Next Step for the Operating Microscope

Disclaimer

References

0 Response to "Parma Ã¢ââ€œ History and Critic of Arts and Spectacle"

Post a Comment

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel