The diagnosis of intra-ocular growths / by A. Hill Griffith.

  • Griffith, A. Hill.
Date:
1892
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The diagnosis of intra-ocular growths / by A. Hill Griffith. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by UCL Library Services. The original may be consulted at UCL (University College London)

    19/24 (page 19)
    is very high, nor do I recall its occurrence in primary glaucoma; hence, I believe that simple increase of tension has no place in its production, and, further, the tension has been normal or sub-normal in the cases I have seen. In very exceptional cases a sarcoma may come before us with the appearances of a simple chronic form of iritis or irido- Simulating cyclitis, with closure of the pupil and opacity of the chronic Iritis, media, unattended by increase of tension, pain, or injection of the eye. The following case, which I published in a paper on The Prognosis of Choroidal Sarcoma, in the Ophthalmic Review, December, 1891, is the only example that has come under my observation :— Qase 23,—W. V., aged 60, consulted me on account of loss of Fig 7.—Melanotic sarcoma of seventeen years' duration, showing shrinking and perforation of globe, and the presence of a bony spicule. eight in the left eye, which had been failing for about eight months, and was unattended by pain or inflammation. There was no perception of light, the tension was normal, there was just a trace of injection of the eye, the pupil was of moderate size, but bound down to the lens capsule by several adhesions; the iris was somewhat degenerated, reddish-brown in colour, and bulging in places; the cornea and apparently the lens were transparent, but no reflex whatever could be obtained by the ophthalmoscope. I had seen the patient seventeen months before for serous chemosis of the same eye, which got perfectly well in a few days by the use of warm lead lotion and freely snipping the ocular conjunctiva. He attributed the attack to catching cold while bathing in the sea shortly before, an explanation which seemed quite satisfactory, for, according to his own account, both eyes were at first affected—indeed the right was worse than the left—and further, he had had a chalk stone removed from his eye by a medical man. I ordered him to use atropine, and see me again shortly, hoping that I should then be able to illuminate the eye, and arrive at a diagnosis. I was called to see him three days later, and found the eye of stony