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 Web of Science (36)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

ANDRÉ J. BRUWER, M.D.; ROBERT R. KIERLAND, M.D.

AMA Arch Ophthalmol. 1955;53(1):2-12.

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

TWELVE years ago, at the 93rd Annual Session of the American Medical Association, the subject of pulsating exophthalmos was reviewed.¹ That survey encompassed 812 cases. In practically all those cases an arteriovenous shunt was apparently the basic factor responsible for the condition. It would seem that the term "pulsating exophthalmos" automatically implied the association of an arteriovenous communication in or immediately behind the orbit.

No mention was made at that time of a small group of cases of congenital unilateral pulsating exophthalmos in which there is no associated arteriovenous shunt and in which the roentgenologic findings are indicative of defective development of the sphenoid wings and of the orbital plate of the frontal bone. A number of such cases had been placed on the record by 1954, and some authors had found a curious relationship to neurofibromatosis, thus adding further to the mystery of that disease. Also, cases of . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
ROCHESTER, MINN.

From the Section of Roentgenology (Dr. Bruwer) and the Section of Dermatology (Dr. Kierland), Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation. The Mayo Foundation is a part of the Graduate School of the University of Minnesota.

Footnotes
Read before the Section on Radiology at the 103rd Annual Meeting of the American Medical Association, San Francisco, June 25, 1954.

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