[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.205.9.146. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
September 1991

Functional vs Cosmetic Ophthalmologic Defects-Reply

Author Affiliations

Salt Lake City, Utah
St Louis, Mo

Arch Ophthalmol. 1991;109(9):1194-1195. doi:10.1001/archopht.1991.01080090016004

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

In Reply.  —We thank Small for defining ptosis and also for pointing out that his study demonstrated superior field defects in 97% of patients with a midpupil to upper lid distance of less than 2 mm.He further describes semantic problems such as the use of the term cosmetic in describing operating procedures and in ophthalmic literature. He makes an important distinction between cosmetic and reconstructive surgery. Unfortunately, our literature has referred to many problems that do not interfere with vision as "cosmetic." However, physicians should not refer to a problem as cosmetic in their charts or referral letters, for example, "I am referring you this patient with a cosmetic ptosis." If an insurance company receives such information in a second opinion or in requested records, the surgery will not be covered, regardless of what other information is provided. Therefore, it is important to avoid the term cosmetic and supplant

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