You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 154 No. 5, May 2000 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Special Feature
 This Article
 •Full text
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on ISI (2)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Renal Diseases
 •Genetics
 •Renal Diseases, Other
 •Genetic Disorders
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Picture of the Month

Richard W. Hartmann, Jr, MD; Walter W. Tunnessen, Jr, MD
From the Family Practice Residency Program, Halifax Medical Center, Daytona Beach, Fla (Dr Hartmann), and the American Board of Pediatrics, Chapel Hill, NC (Dr Tunnessen).

Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2000;154:525-526.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

AT BIRTH, a female infant small for gestational age had unusual findings on examination of the eyes. Although the corneal diameters were appropriate (10 mm), the pupils were remarkably large (Figure 1). The pupil size did not change with light stimulation. No suggestion of iris tissue could be identified in either eye. The corneas and lenses were clear, and a red reflex was present and symmetric in appearance in each eye. Findings from funduscopic examination showed no abnormality, and the remainder of the physical examination results were unremarkable.

There was no family history of similar findings. Results of a chromosomal analysis were normal (46, XX). A renal ultrasound examination showed no abnormalities. At age 1 month, the infant developed glaucoma.



Denouncement and Discussion: Congenital Aniridia

Figure 1. The eyes are unusual in appearance because of large pupillary apertures with apparent absence of . . . [Full Text of this Article]







HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2000 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.