This Article  • References  • 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  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Barbara W. Streeten, MD; Kenneth H. Spitzer, MD; Alice G. Karpik, MD
Syracuse, NY

Arch Ophthalmol. 1984;102(9):1268-1270.

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

To the Editor.

—We appreciate the interest that Drs Perlstein and Chubak¹ showed in our article² on posterior keratoconus and their point is well taken. The rationale for doing a penetrating keratoplasty on our 16-year-old patient with 20/70 vision in each eye due to posterior keratoconus was not fully explained in our article. The history was given from the time of referral to one of us (K.H.S.), but records were available to us from a previous visit to an ophthalmologist in the same office, suggesting an excellent potential for vision. These included the information that in 1970, at the age of 10 years, the patient's visual acuity was 20/50 in each eye without correction, improving to 20/30 with pinhole in each eye. She read J 1 print with difficulty. No treatment was recommended at that time.

The patient was next seen for keratoplasty in 1976 at the age . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?