[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.211.1.15. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
October 1961

ULTRASONOGRAPHY

Author Affiliations

V.A. Hospital 130 W. Knightsbridge Rd. Bronx 68, N.Y.

Arch Ophthalmol. 1961;66(4):606-608. doi:10.1001/archopht.1961.00960010607027
Abstract

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

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview
×