This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

ANALYSIS OF FIFTY-FOUR CASES

CAPTAIN WILLIAM O. LINHART

Arch Ophthal. 1944;31(5):403-407.

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

According to O'Brien and Allen,¹ allergic dermatitis of the lids is not uncommon, but allergic keratoconjunctivitis is rare. Morrison² presented a verified case of allergic conjunctivitis and dermatitis resulting from the topical use of 5 per cent sodium sulfathiazole and 5 per cent sulfathiazole in a hydrous wool fat-petrolatum base. McAlpine and Berens³ reported cases of blepharoconjunctivitis due to the use of tetracaine. Parlato⁴ stated that allergy should be considered as an etiologic factor when chronic conjunctivitis, blepharitis and eczema of the lids have proved refractory to the usual treatment.

Balyeat and Bowen⁵ classified allergic conjunctivitis as (a) the acute type, caused by animal dander, orris and eyelash cosmetics, and (b) the chronic type, divided in turn into the limbal and the palpebral form, caused by foods, pollens, animal dander, orris, dust and cosmetics.

Woods⁶ discussed two steps in the diagnosis of responsible allergens—first, . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
MEDICAL CORPS, ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES

From the Station Hospital, Fort Eustis, Va.

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