[Skip to Navigation]
September 30, 1905


Author Affiliations

Professor of Ophthalmology, U. M. C. KANSAS CITY, MO.

JAMA. 1905;XLV(14):957-961. doi:10.1001/jama.1905.52510140003001a

That the subject of differential diagnosis of intraorbital tumors is worthy of consideration is emphasized by the egregious mistake made recently by some of the members of the Association in the case here reported. My object is not to criticise those who saw, examined and made their diagnoses, but rather to emphasize the liability even of eminent oculists to err in their diagnoses of growths of the orbit and consequently to advise treatment which if carried out would be damaging to the patient as well as to the oculist.

Before proceeding to administer treatment for intraorbital tumors, we should arrive, if possible, at a correct diagnosis, as there are several kinds of growths which invade the orbit, and not all are amenable to the same treatment. Among the several kinds of growths of the orbit there exist both benign and malignant. There are bony, fleshy, bloody, nervous, fatty and serous

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