This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • 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  • Related article  • Related letters  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Diagnosis  • Ophthalmological Disorders, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic

Randy Kardon, MD, PhD; Sandeep Randhawa, MD; Vinay Shah, MD

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In reply

We would like to thank Dr Jonas for his valuable comments to supplement our Photo Essay case of megalopapilla mistaken for glaucoma in an 8-year-old boy. We could not agree more with his assessment that an informed clinical examination of optic disc morphology is the mainstay of differentiating normal optic discs from those with glaucoma. It was interesting that this patient was sent to us because the referring entity used the Heidelberg Retina Tomograph (HRT II; Heidelberg Engineering, Heidelberg, Germany) to further assess the morphology of the disc. In so doing, they paid attention to the abnormal results in the Moorfield regression analysis printout (see our Figure 3C and caption) but failed to read the "fine print" of the report containing a warning message that the analysis was only valid for discs having an area between 1.2 and . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION

RELATED ARTICLE

Megalopapilla, Not Glaucoma
Sandeep Randhawa, Vinay A. Shah, and Randy H. Kardon
Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125(8):1134.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED LETTERS

Synergistic Convergence in Congenital Extraocular Muscle Misinnervation
Christina Pieh, Ansgar Berlis, and Wolf A. Lagrèze
Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(4):574-576.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Large Optic Disc
Jost B. Jonas
Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(4):582.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT