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. 111 No. 6, June 1993 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  CASE REPORTS
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Giant-Cell Reaction in Surgically Excised Subretinal Neovascular Membrane

Amy K. Hutchinson, MD; Hans E. Grossniklaus, MD; Antonio Capone, MD
Atlanta, Ga

Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111(6):734-735.

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

Surgical excision of subretinal neovascular membrane is a treatment currently offered for selected patients with subfoveal neovascularization.1 Pathologic study of excised membranes has provided insight into the pathogenesis of subretinal neovascularization.2 We report herein a case in which pathologic examination of an excised membrane revealed a foreign-body giant-cell reaction.

Report of a Case.

—A 79-year-old white woman was examined for subfoveal neovascularization in her left eye. The patient had a history of age-related macular degeneration and had previously undergone laser photocoagulation in her right eye. The patient's medical history was significant for non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. Initial examination revealed that the patient's visual acuity was counting fingers at 1 ft in her right eye and 20/60 OS.

External examination showed mild blepharitis and cataracts in both eyes. Fundus examination showed a posterior vitreous detachment and scattered discrete nodular drusen in both eyes. There was no evidence of intraocular inflammation. . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]



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





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1993 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.