Prep for USMLEPrep for USMLE
         Forum      |     Resources New Posts   |   Register   |   Login

 retinal artery ooclusion vs amaurosis fugax  

Post Reply  
  • 0/5
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Author6 Posts

I'm so confused about retinal artery ooclusion and amaurosis fugax, what's the difference between them by definition? "amaurosis fugax is caused by retinal emboli from carotid disease", so does this emboli occlude the retinal artery? if it does, why not call it retinal artery occlusion? can anyone help me? thanks


amaurosis fugax´s definition is a time issue: if there is a temporal oclusion of the retinal artery that resolved spontaneously, this is described as amaurosis fugax. the point with it is that it mat be a sign of impending stroke...

retunal artery oclusion: is an emergency, you have to do something because here the patien is not complaining of transient blindness, he or she is complaining of sudden visual loss right now!!!

so conclusion: it is amaurosis ugax when the patint tells you that he has had transient episodes of blindness...
it is retinal artery oclusion when the patient tells you that he or she is unilaterally blind (normally), and hasn´t recovered.

both are 70% of the time related to carotid artery embolism, in both cases you do something, but AF (is a warning) and RAO (is an emergency).


great analysis frank.


frank100, thank you so much for your help


also CRAO has clues like cherry red fovea and pallor of optic disc

while Amaurosis Fugax describes something about edematous retinal arterioles

I agree though, it's pretty confusing in a vignette


Yeah, frank! good one!... we have just remember the term "fugax" it comes from the greek and the meaning is fugitive... so it comes for a while and then it goes!...

Bookmark and Share

This thread is closed, so you cannot post a reply.

Login or Register to post messages

show Similar forum topics

Amaurosis fugax....
Central Retinal Artery Occlusion
show Related resources

Advertise | Support | Premium | Contact