Implanting two posterior chamber intraocular lenses in a case of microphthalmos

Gayton, Johnny L.; Sanders, Valerie

doi:10.1016/s0886-3350(13)80349-5

Cited by 117 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[69][70][71][72] Together with surgeons performing piggyback implantation, our laboratory has been devoting constant efforts to determine the pathogenesis and management of this complication (Figures 7-9). [72][73][74][75] We have recently proposed clinical and pathological lessons for prevention and management of this entity (Pandey SK, Snyder ME, Werner L, Apple …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Post cataract-intraocular lens (IOL) surgery opacification

Trivedi

Werner

Apple

et al. 2002

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intraocular lens (IOL) implantation has no doubt been one of the most satisfying advances of medicine. Millions of individuals with visual disability or frank blindness from cataracts had and continue to have benefit from this procedure. It has been reported by ophthalmologists that the modern cataract-intraocular lens (IOL) surgery is safe and complication-free most of the time. This makes the watchword for any cataract surgeon to be 'implantation,' 'implantation,' 'implantation.' In the mid1980s, as IOLs were evolving rapidly, the watchword of the implant surgeon was 'fixation,' 'fixation,' 'fixation.' Most techniques, lenses and surgical adjuncts now allow us to achieve the basic requirement for successful IOL implantation, namely longterm stable IOL fixation in the capsular bag.However despite this advancement some items 'slipped through cracks.' In this article, we would like to alert the reader to a new watchword, namely 'opacification,' 'opacification,' 'opacification.' Here we will be talking about the good, the bad, and the ugly. Examples of the 'good' include the recent successes now being achieved in reducing the incidence of posterior capsule opacification. Examples of the 'bad' include various proliferations of anterior capsule cells, problems caused by silicone oil adherence to IOLs and problems with piggyback IOLs. The 'ugly' include the sometimes striking and often visually disabling opacifications occurring on and within IOL optics, both on some modern foldable IOLs as well as a poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) optic degradation occurring with some models a decade or more after implantation.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Post cataract-intraocular lens (IOL) surgery opacification

Trivedi

Werner

Apple

et al. 2002

Eye

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…В 1993 г. Gayton и Sanders предложили технологию имплантации «piggyback» ИОЛ для обеспечения «плюсовой» рефрак-ции при микрофтальмии [1]. Другие авторы последо-вательно использовали данный подход для коррекции гиперметропии высокой степени [2,3,4,5,6,7].…”

Section: имплантация «Piggyback» иол или замена иол?unclassified

Management of Residual Refractive Error After Cataract Phacoemulsification. Part 2. Intraocular Approaches

Pershin¹,

Pashinova²,

Цыганков³

et al. 2017

test

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The best markers of the quality of a biometry service are the percentage of eyes achieving a postoperative spherical equivalent refraction within 0.5 and 1.0D of the target refraction and the total range of refractive error (32). The Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCOphth) 2004 cataract surgery guidelines state that both optical (partial coherence interferometry (PCI)) and acoustic (ultrasound) methods of axial length measurement can be routinely used (33), although it has been shown that PCI reduces the prediction error of postoperative refractive outcome.…”

Section: Refractive Surprises After Cataract Surgerymentioning

confidence: 99%