Glaucoma following ingestion of sulfathiazole

Glaucoma following ingestion of sulfathiazole

CORRESPONDENCE 772 ( 6 ) neuromuscular aspects, ( 7 ) the vis­ ual fields, and ( 8 ) the orthoptic treat­ ment of ocular muscle imbalance follow­ in...

131KB Sizes 2 Downloads 91 Views

CORRESPONDENCE

772

( 6 ) neuromuscular aspects, ( 7 ) the vis­ ual fields, and ( 8 ) the orthoptic treat­ ment of ocular muscle imbalance follow­ ing head injuries. This is controversial. The psychological benefit is noted fre­ quently. " T h e technique of plastic surgery is like that of eye surgery. Every maneuver must be precise, purposeful, clean, and finished. T h e handling of tissue must be the minimum." This quotation from Stallard's article is repeatedly confirmed by the very fine case reports and photo­ graphs presented. The lessons of World W a r I which have been so thoroughly taught by John Martin Wheeler have been verified again in the field of plastic surgery. T h e Doyne Lecture, " O n Compression and Invasion of the Optic Nerves and Chiasma by Neighboring Gliomas," is of considerable historic interest in reveal­ ing the development and recognition of the syndrome which was first presented in an extended form by Foster Kennedy. Many individual case reports are scat­ tered through the transactions. William M. James.

( S i g n e d ) Louis Lehrfeld, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

CORRESPONDENCE GLAUCOMA

FOLLOWING

INGESTION

2. T h e pupils were small and irregu­ lar. 3. T h e fundus was recorded as normal through undilated pupils. 4. T h e pupils, three days after the ori­ ginal acute attack, were normal in size and reacted briskly to light and accom­ modation despite the fact that eserine was being used in both eyes. T h e r e is no doubt, from the case re­ ported, that the patient was allergic to sulfathiazole. The edema of the lids and the C h e m o s i s , plus the intense itching and burning, were indicative of an allergic re­ action. T h e incidental increase in pres­ sure is not to be regarded as acute con­ gestive glaucoma because the pupils were not dilated, the fundus could be seen, and the visual acuity was normal with glasses. I think the authors have made a mis­ take. All acute inflammatory diseases bringing about edema and Chemosis may be attended by increased pressure of the eyeball by purely a mechanical process. Acute iritis and acute anterior uveitis may be attended by increased intraocu­ lar pressure. These experiences which register a higher than normal tension on the tonometer are not to be regarded as acute congestive glaucoma.

OF

SULFATHIAZOLE

Editor, American Journal of Ophthalmology: In the February, 1 9 4 7 , issue of the JOURNAL is an article by Fritz and K e s ert reporting a case of glaucoma caused by sulfathiazole. T h e diagnosis of acute congestive glaucoma in the case reported is seriously questioned on the following counts: 1. The vision of either eye was cor­ rected to normal by glasses.

Editor, American Journal of Ophthalmology: Because of the difficulty in arranging a conference with Dr. Kesert, I will un­ dertake to answer Dr. Lehrfeld's letter, assuming full responsibility therefore and not presuming, of course, to speak for Dr. Kesert, who might not subscribe fully to what I write. Dr. Lehrfeld thinks that we were mis­ taken in our diagnosis. Indeed it is pos-