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?

Sudhir Patel, MPhil
Glasgow, Scotland

Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105(8):1017.

	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.

—The recent article by McCarey and colleagues¹ was most thought provoking and clearly demonstrated the state of the art. However, the authors' conclusion that the polysulfone implant produces a greater refractive change on account of its high refractive index is not wholly justified. The lidofilcon-B implants (refractive index, 1.3686) used by the authors had an average power in air of +10.00 diopters (D), the polymethylmethacrylate implants (refractive index, 1.49) had an average power in air of +26.25 D, and the polysulfone implants (refractive index, 1.63) had an average power in air of +36.75 D. Taking the authors' raw data and plotting a graph of implant power in air against corresponding change in ocular power found by retinoscopy, we find a remarkable linear relationship (Figure). Application of linear regression yields the following value: y = 5.53 – 0.53x; correlation coefficient = –0.9685; y indicates change in ocular power, . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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