This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Robert Alexander, MD
Richmond Hill, Ontario

Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105(7):887.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—I read with interest the article by Smith et al¹ and the letter by Apple and Olsen² in the January 1987 ARCHIVES.

It is my opinion that the conclusions, while they may be true, are not substantiated by the details in the surgical cases presented. Twenty-two of the 53 eyes in which the implant was placed had complications during surgery. Seventeen percent had preexisting Fuch's dystrophy.

In a good number of patients who were presented in the tables there was no explanation of what necessitated removal of the implant. It appears that the article by Smith et al does prove that these patients had a very high percentage of complications at the original surgery. Perhaps one should look at the reasons for the complications of surgery rather than condemning the implant. The implants did not request to be placed in eyes with dystrophy. The implants . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?