Klinische Monatsblatter fur Augenheilkunde · 2007
[Foreign bodies of the iris as a rare differential diagnosis of malignant melanoma of the iris].
Клинический случайАннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Dunavoelgyi R, Dejaco-Ruhswurm I, Zehetmayer M
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Lesions of the iris require a thorough examination to differentiate them from malignant melanoma because of the severe therapeutic consequences of the latter entity.
METHODS: We observed two cases with a unilateral lesion on the iris, both suspicious of malignant melanoma of the iris. Ophthalmological, echographic and ultrasound biomicroscopic examinations were done.
RESULTS: The cases of a 66-year-old man with a metallic foreign body and a 37-year-old man with a foreign body, both located on the iris, are presented.
CONCLUSION: In both patients an unclear lesion of the iris, suspicious of a malignant melanoma of the iris, turned out to be a foreign body after ophthalmoscopic examination. Both echography and ultrasound biomicroscopy were carried out and proved to be useful to confirm the diagnosis. No ocular inflammations, siderosis or secondary glaucoma occurred in the described cases. Observation of dormant foreign bodies is sufficient.
METHODS: We observed two cases with a unilateral lesion on the iris, both suspicious of malignant melanoma of the iris. Ophthalmological, echographic and ultrasound biomicroscopic examinations were done.
RESULTS: The cases of a 66-year-old man with a metallic foreign body and a 37-year-old man with a foreign body, both located on the iris, are presented.
CONCLUSION: In both patients an unclear lesion of the iris, suspicious of a malignant melanoma of the iris, turned out to be a foreign body after ophthalmoscopic examination. Both echography and ultrasound biomicroscopy were carried out and proved to be useful to confirm the diagnosis. No ocular inflammations, siderosis or secondary glaucoma occurred in the described cases. Observation of dormant foreign bodies is sufficient.