Talk:Central retinal vein

Does the Central Retinal Vein have a visible pulse on Fundoscopy?

Ok. So I went to my optometrist the other day and as he was looking in my eye he made a casual comment that he could see the vein in my retina pulsing. Not being able to keep my mouth shut I stated that I was under the impression that arteries should be pulsing, not veins. I told him that I believe him but that I didn’t understand how that could be. He showed me a fundoscopic image of my eye and pointed to where he routinely sees a pulse—we both agreed that it was the central retinal vein. I hypothesized that this pulse was due to its proximity to the artery but neither one of us had a truly satisfying answer. Here’s what I found so far: Bates’ Guide to Physical Examination and History Taking says that venous pulsation may be visible. Swartz’s Textbook of Physical Diagnosis says that the central retinal vein may show “spontaneous pulsation” in 85% of patients. The 39th edition of Gray’s Anatomy is woefully deficient in its description of the central retinal vein (ambiguously indicating forward flow (?)) but it does say that the central retinal artery generally does not have a visible pulse on opthalmoscopy. Moore and Dalley’ Clinically Oriented Anatomy states nothing of venous pulsation but says that “pulsation of the retinal arteries is usually visible." Ross and Pawlina’s Histology was useless. Rhoades’ and Tanner’s Medical Physiology was also useless. Barker, Burton, and Zieve’s Principles of Ambulatory Medicine (fifth edition) and Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine (thirteenth edition) also were useless.MorbidAnatomy (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)