Abstract
The differential diagnosis between primary and postneuritic optic nerve atrophy is sometimes decided by one or two minute anatomic details. Attention is paid chiefly to the presence of the physiologic cup, to the visibility of stippling of the lamina cribrosa, to the absence of connective tissue on the disk or vessels, to the integrity of the disk outlines and to the regular distribution of pigment around the nerve. If deviations from the normal under these headings are noted they are presumptive evidence that an inflammation of the nerve has antedated its atrophic state. But how much right on the basis of statistical inquiry does one have in assuming that the nerve should possess a well defined cup or a visible lamina cribrosa, that the borders of the disk should be sharp, without adjacent pigmentary derangement, or that connective tissue should be absent ? If only one nerve is atrophic a comparison
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
