[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.211.112.177. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
November 1968

COMMENTS ON BURCH's CRITICISM OF GITTER ET AL's ARTICLE

Arch Ophthalmol. 1968;80(5):681. doi:10.1001/archopht.1968.00980050683019

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

To the Editor.  —The angiographic differentiation between fluorescence and pseudofluorescence is often difficult and best made by observing the lesion over a period of time. True fluorescence or leakage of dye usually increases with time, whereas pseudofluorescence parallels normal background fluorescence for five to ten minutes and then begins to fade, as in Gass' article, "Pathology of Disciform, Detachment of Neuroepithelium" (Amer J Ophthal63:592, 1967).Figure 6 of our article shows a loss of overlying retinal pigment epithelium at the site of choroidal rupture without true fluorescence. Nevertheless, lesions of this type, ie, choroidal rupture or angiod streaks, as in Fig 9 and 10 of Smith et al's article (Brit J Ophthal48:517 [Oct] 1964), may demonstrate progressive staining with fluorescein, depending on whether or not there is extravascular leakage of dye from the choroidal vasculature.Pseudofluorescence is observed whenever the overlying pigment epithelium is thinned, thereby

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