IOVS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


(Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 1971;10:457-465.)
© 1971 by The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, Inc.

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by KRILL, A. E.
Right arrow Articles by POKORNY, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by KRILL, A. E.
Right arrow Articles by POKORNY, J.

Further Studies Supporting the Identity of Congenital Tritanopia and Hereditary Dominant Optic Atrophy

ALEX E. KRILL 1, VIVIANNE C. SMITH 1, and JOEL POKORNY 1

1 Eye Research Laboratories, the University of Chicago Chicago, Ill.

Dominant inherited optic atrophy is usually a stationary disorder with typical findings of temporal optic nerve pallor, abnormal distance acuity, minimal visual-field defects, and characteristic color confusions in the blue-green region of the spectrum. Variability in the severity of these abnormalities is common, even within the same family. In patients with minimal disease, distance acuity may be close to normal and optic pallor may be so subtle that a definitive diagnosis cannot be made unless other obviously affected members of a family are seen. Our studies indicate that patients with dominantly inherited optic atrophy have similar color vision to that previously reported for subjects with congenital tritan defects. In fact, the almost identical color-vision profiles and pattern of inheritance of the two conditions lead us to question the existence of congenital tritan defect as an independent entity. Criteria are suggested for distinguishing the two conditions. It is emphasized that the utmost care should be taken to rule out dominant optic atrophy in future subjects in whom congenital tritanopia is suspected, both because of the strikingly similar characteristics of the two conditions, if these are indeed separate entities, and because the diagnosis of hereditary dominant atrophy may be easily missed.

Key Words: hereditary dominant optic atrophy • congenital tritanopia • visual-field defects • color confusion • visual defects • optic nerve pallor

Submitted on April 13, 1971
Accepted on April 30, 1971







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1971 by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology