1,721,121 research outputs found

    AH Chapman, Jr

    No full text
    A.H. (Alva) Chapman, Jr. with the Bradenton Herald. Ca. 1940s

    George Arthur Chapman, Jr.

    No full text
    Portrait of George Arthur Chapman, Jr. taken in the studio of Edwin Williams [Pasadena, Califorina?], 1932.https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/chapman_family/1089/thumbnail.jp

    Lois Chapman, daughter of Frank M. Chapman, Jr.

    No full text
    Studio portrait of Lois Chapman, daughter of Frank M. Chapman, Jr., San Bernardino, California, ca. 1915.https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/chapman_family/1049/thumbnail.jp

    Alvah Chapman, Jr speaking to Chamber of Commerce

    No full text
    Alvah Chapman, Jr. addresses members of Manatee Chamber of Commerce. Chapman (1921-2008) was the head of Knight-Ridder Newspapers, who at one point owned the Bradenton Herald

    Frank Chapman Jr. [?] in a touring car, beside the Palmetto Grove house, Covina, California, 1909

    No full text
    Frank Chapman Jr. [?] in a touring car, beside the Palmetto Grove house, Covina, California, August, 1909.https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/chapman_family/1081/thumbnail.jp

    Frank M. Chapman, Jr. son of Frank M. and Wilhelmina Chapman, Chicago, Illinois, ca. 1891.

    No full text
    Studio portrait of Frank M. Chapman, Jr. son of Frank M. and Wilhelmina Chapman, Chicago, Illinois, ca. 1891.https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/chapman_family/1048/thumbnail.jp

    Charles Clarke Chapman letter to grandson Charles Stanley Chapman Jr., January 3, 1941

    Get PDF
    The enclosed original letter was written by C.C. Chapman to his grandson Stanley Chapman, Jr. on January 3, 1941.https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/chapman_correspondence/1000/thumbnail.jp

    Grant Chapman, Clarke Chapman, and Frank Chapman Jr., Palmetto Grove, Covina, California, ca. 1915

    No full text
    Left to right: Grant Chapman, Clarke Chapman, and Frank Chapman Jr., sons of Frank Marion and Wilhelmina Zillen Chapman, on a porch at Palmetto Grove, Covina, California, ca. 1915.https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/chapman_family/1068/thumbnail.jp

    Efficiency Comparison Between Two Different Lasers and Cataract Surgery Workflows: A Prospective and Retrospective Analysis

    Get PDF
    Jack M Chapman Jr Clinical Ophthalmology, North Georgia Eye Associates, Gainesville, GA, USACorrespondence: Jack M Chapman Jr, Clinical Ophthalmology, North Georgia Eye Associates, 2061 Beverly Road, Gainesville, GA, 30501, USA, Tel +1 404 234 5433, Email [email protected]: To compare time efficiencies between a traditional femtosecond laser platform and workflow and a single-room model with a robotic laser in patients undergoing cataract surgery.Patients and Methods: Single site, prospective, non-masked study of 23 patients (n = 23 eyes) who underwent the femtosecond laser portion of their cataract surgery with the LenSx Femtosecond Laser System (Alcon, Ft. Worth, Texas) in one room and were subsequently moved to a second room for the remainder of their surgery compared to 23 patients who underwent surgery with a dual-modality, robotic laser (ALLY, Lensar, Orlando, FL) and remained in the same room for the rest of the surgery. Time parameters evaluated were laser set up, docking, suction, total laser time, docking attempts, surgeon total case time, patient total case time, transition to phacoemulsification start time, and transition preparation and draping. Third party observers tracked all time and motion parameters by using a stopwatch and documented activities with a time stamp.Results: There were statistical differences in numerous parameters (all outcomes were measured in minutes): mean suction time [ALLY, 1:16 vs LenSx, 2:26, (P < 0.001)], laser completion to phacoemulsification initiation [ALLY, 0:57 vs LenSx, 4:39, (P < 0.001)], laser set up start to docking start [ALLY, 10:05 vs LenSx, 19:31, (P = 0.034)], total laser time for the surgeon [ALLY, 3:17 vs LenSx, 4:53; (P = < 0.001)]; total case time for the surgeon [ALLY, 14:27 vs LenSx,19:40; (P < 0.001)], and total patient time spent in the OR [ALLY, 25:25 vs LenSx 33:22; (P = 0.021)]. There were no statistically significant differences in total phaco procedure time.Conclusion: Using a robotic laser for cataract surgery can save about 5 minutes of surgeon time per case and 8 minutes of patient’s time in the OR when compared to a traditional femtosecond laser platform set up.Keywords: phacoemulsification, femtosecond laser, robotic laser, cost-benefit analysis, robotic surgical procedure
    corecore