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?

Gilbert Baum, M.D.
V.A. Hospital 130 W. Knightsbridge Rd. Bronx 68, N.Y.

Arch Ophthalmol. 1961;66(4):606-608.

	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:

—Ultrasonic interpretation is the crux of the issue between Drs. Oksala and Lehtinen, and us. Drs. Oksala and Lehtinen advocate the use of an isolated TAU which yields graphs, Figure 1, p. 353 (ARCH. OPHTHAL. 65:353, 1961). We oppose the adoption of this technique for general clinical diagnosis because it is impossible to establish uniform interpretative criteria with the data obtained by TAU, since every minor alteration of the transducer tissue geometry produces major changes in the TAU pattern (reference; Figure 3, p. 355, and Figure 4, p. 356 of the above article). Because of the infinite number of patterns produced by TAU, the graphs may be meaningful to the individual examiner, but cannot be interpreted by others. In contrast, cross-sections obtained by IMU may be viewed by any ophthalmologist, and a total retinal detachment could readily be identified as such. Granted that finer points of interpretation . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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