You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 117 No. 8, August 1999 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  From the Archives of the Archives
 This Article
 •Full text
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal

A look at the past . . .

Arch Ophthalmol. 1999;117:1086.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 80 words of the full text and any section headings.

Since Mauthner, in 1867 (Die Lehre vom Glaucom), suggested that "congenital hydrophthalmia is nothing but a glaucoma developed in utero, or soon after birth—more likely secondary than primary," and Muralt, a pupil of Horner, two years later in his inaugural dissertation, called special attention to this view of its pathology, it has generally been considered to be the result of a glaucomatic process due to uveal inflammation.

Reference: Report of a Case of Kerato-Globus. Arch Ophthalmol. 1898;27:202.







HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1999 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.