A gentleman aged about 30, consulted me. His complaint was that he had some immovable membranous stuff. Adhering to the left side of his left eye-ball, on account of which he felt great inconvenience in moving and shutting his eye. Also the eyes watered when being shut. He further said that he had cataract of that eye, the cataract having been extracted about 1879. Six months after this operation the patient began to geel the uneasiness and the watering of the eyes alluded to above. In December, 1882, one day, just as he was combing his hair is fore a mirror, he happened to notice the membranous substance in the eye. In January, 1883, He whet to the Eye Infirmary of the Calcutta Medical College, and consulted the surgeon there. The assistant-surgeon attached to the institution said that it was a case of pterygium, and that it should be removed by surgical operation. The patient did not, however, submit to the operation, and so came away without treatment. He was told that this kind of disease could be cured by the internal use of Homeopathic remedies without surgical aid.
I examined the case, and took it, at first, to be one of pterygium, but on a second examination, and considering the history of the extraction of cataract, I changed my opinion, and thought the case to be one of chemosis. I told the patient at first that I could not cure the case without surgical interlerence; but he would on no account submit to it. He persisted in his statement that he had been told that his disease could be cured by Homoeopathic remedies used internally without the assistance of surgery. After some deliberation, I undertook the treatment. I prescribed Sepia 6. Then he told me that he had already been under the treatment of three Homoeopathic physicians who had presctibe for him Sepia, Sulphur, Silicea, Colchicum, Euphrasia, Apis, Arsenicum alb., with no improvement. When I heard all this, I said I could not persuade myself to believe that my treatment would do him any good. Upon this he said that to his knowledge, a boy of 9, at Sankhibhauga, Calcutta, had been cured by me with only one medicine, which, he believed, could successfully be tried in his case also. He represented that the father of the boy himself was his informant, and that it was he who bad sent him to me. I had forgotten all about this patient’s case. On reference to my clinical note book, I found that I had treated a case of chemosis of a boy of 9, at Sankhibhauga, Calcutta, with Sepia and Guarea, for three months, but found no mention of the result of the treatment there. On inquiry from a relation of the boy, I learned that the boy had been cured by the treatment. The relation further said that the first medicine (Sepia 6.) given him had done him much good, but had not cured him completely. It was the second medicine (Guarea) which taken for nearly two months, had effected a complete cure. This boy’s case was one of chemosis, following an attack of conjunctivitis of a severe type. The excellent results of the treatment of this boy’s case made me hopeful about my new patient, the young man.
I prescribe Guarea 12, three doses daily. A week after I saw the patient again, and found him some what better. The medicine was continued for a week more. The next week I saw the patient again. And found him no better than the previous week. At the same time I could not find out another medicine which would suit him. Then I prescribed the 6th potency of the same medicine, three doses daily, for a week. The next week I found him better than last week. I ordered the continuation of the 6th potency for a week more. The next week I saw the patient again, and again I found him no better than the previous week. I now prescribed Guarea 2, three doses daily, for a week, after which I saw the patient and found that the chemosis had almost disappeared, a trace alone being visible, and that after a very careful examination. I ordered the medicine to be continued for a week more- only one dose at bed time each night. For three weeks following, the patient did not come to me, nor did he send any information about his case. In the fourth week he saw me, and on examination I found that no trace of the chemosis was visible by the naked eye, but some trace could still be detected by a magnifying glass. Now I stopped the medicine and told him not to use it till the chemosis recurred. The patient did not come to me for a long time. After this, in March, 1891, I met him again, whin he said that he had no recurrence of his eye disease.
From the above case that the boy and of the young man it appears that Guarea is a very good medicine for chemosis; and that the lowest potencies act better than the medium ones. I have tried it in some cases of conjunctivitis, but without satis factory results In August, 1891, I prescribe Guarea in the second potency, in two cases of pterygium. The patients were uterine brothers. I prescribed three doses daily. This medicine was continued for a month, after which both the case had improved a little. I ordered the continuation of the medicine for a month more. Along with the internal use of the medicine I prescribed an eye-drop (Guarea mj, Aqua dest. 3j), a drop or two to be applied to the eye morning and evening, daily. At this time I left Calcutta. When I returned to town, July last, both the patients came to me and I found both much improved Hence Guarea must be useful in pterygium also. I would recommend to the profession the trial of Guarea in pterygium.
Since writing the above, I got a letter from one of the patients suffering from pterygium, who form the subject matter of this paper. He tells me that both he and his brother have got rid of the disease by my treatment. He also tells me that he believes that the eye-drop did them very good service and cured them rapidly. I confess I am not much for external applications in cases of diseases of such delicate organs as eyes and ears. Yet, after seeing the results of treatment of the above case, I cannot resist the temptation of recommending the external use of Guarea as a lotion in chemosis and pletygium along with its internal use. I would suggest that the internal use of the medicine should be first resorted to, and, if after sufficient trial of the medicine internally no marked improvement is noticed, the external use of the medicine should be thought of. The cure of the cases of pterygium seems to me to be marvelous- Marvelous, because I do not remember to have seen any case of pterygium cured without surgical interference. I have seen cases in which chemosis disappeared in course of time without any treatment, either medical or surgical. R.K.GHOSH.